This is an outstanding method by which to debate this issue. I congratulate Ken for working it out. Political debates are as much for the public to assess the candidates, as they are for the information they provide. Thus, live debates are appropriate. However, in discussions of a scientific issue, assessment of the debaters, themselves, is not only unnecessary, but an undesirable distraction from the issue at hand. Any arguments that can be made live can also be made in written form which can then be carefully assessed for validity, and to which a proper response can be formulated. I strongly urge Paul to take this approach from now on when he issues challenges for debate of water fluoridation. The public will be much better served in this manner.

The standard lay person argument I would offer here is that there are few, if any studies of fluorides’ effects on people’s health at this level.Very few populations that are fluoridated get such alow level. That is because 0.7ppml is the new, lowest level of fluoridation which Fianna Fail brought into Ireland in 2007 after the US NRC advised fluoridation was too risky to continue at the higher level of 1ppm

But that should not make any difference .As you say it has been around for at least 6 years, and if anything it should strengthen the pro fluoride argument as the dosage is lower, But this was manly bought about because of dental fluorosis. A cosmetic discoloration of the teeth

Talking about the need for research Ian – could you provide some citations, links, etc., to research supporting your claim that the questionable and mild fluorosis associated with fluoridation is a first symptom of F toxicity?

Seriously, that is an extremely important claim to make so should be backed up.

Ian, in the absence of valid evidence of a problem with fluoride toxicity related to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, it is invalid to demand proof that there is not. Such demands for proof of a negative are an endless process, as antifluoridationists will eternally make unsubstantiated claims then demand proof that they are not valid. A guess that dental fluorosis may be a sign of another problem is not valid evidence of anything.

There is no valid proof of any adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0,7 ppm.

Ian, you are still purposely confusing severe dental fluorosis which probably does indicate toxic intake levels of F, with questionable of very mild fluorosis which may be considered perfectly normal, cosmetic only and not evidence of toxic levels.

Severe fluorosis occurs where natural F levels are high or there is unusual high intake, such as by continuous eating of toothpaste.

You have not produced any evidence to support your claim that the questionable/mild dental fluorosis (that anti-fluoride people just label fluorosis) is at all an indication of toxic levels or internal poisoning.

Ken should certainly be considered an expert in Chemistry and Fluoride, but not I. I am not an expert in either, simply a healthcare professional who has done due diligence in seeking accurate information from reliable sources.

The study you reference in your first sentence makes no mention of concentration levels of fluoride. Yes, dental fluorosis can certainly occur with overexposure to fluoride during tooth forming years. However, the only dental fluorosis which may occur attributable to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm is mild to very mild. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which is generally only observable under close examination by a dental professional. It has no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al, have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more resistant to decay, this effect is not even considered to be undesirable by many, much less adverse.

What you state in your last paragraph is your desire to prove a negative, i.e. “there could possibly be a problem, therefore you must prove there is not one”. This is invalid science, and would be an endless process. In order to require proof that there is not a problem, there must first be valid evidence that a problem exists. There is none in regard to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity)
Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity). By extension, the word may be metaphorically used to describe toxic effects on larger and more complex groups, such as the family unit or society at large.

Teeth[edit]
The only generally accepted adverse effect of fluoride at levels used for water fluoridation is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children’s teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and usually only an aesthetic concern. Compared to unfluoridated water, fluoridation to 1 mg/L is estimated to cause fluorosis in one of every 6 people (range 4–21), and to cause fluorosis of aesthetic concern in one of every 22 people (range 13.6–∞). Here, “aesthetic concern” is a term used in a standardized scale based on what adolescents would find unacceptable, as measured by a 1996 study of British 14-year-olds.[14]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
If you don’t agree I’m sure you can summit alteration to wikipedia
Steve in this debate you have canned anti fluoride site but you then you use pro-fluoride sites (The Journal of the American Dental Association.)
Ken
since you brought it up could tell us refer me to a paper outlining how much dental fluorsis represents toxicity of F( ie the level of fluorsis which represents start of toxicity) & what level of fluoride would need to be consumed or absorbed
Steve since your in the dental field you possibly could help in providing a definition which would clearly show when cosmetic becomes toxic…because I certainly at the moment from the above definition of toxicity cant discern a difference

Antifluoridationist websites are rife with out-of-context information, misinterpretation of study results, half-truths, and misinformation. They are managed and maintained by persons who are unqualified to understand science or healthcare. If you are equating these sites with the Journal of the American Dental Association, in discussion of a dental/healthcare issue, then I really don’t need to comment any further on that. The absolute absurdity speaks for itself.

It is of no concern to me, whatsoever, what Wikipedia has to say about dental fluorosis. I obtain my scientific information from far more authoritative sources.

If this will help your confusion, the 2006 NRC Committee which generated the report that antifluoridationists so frequently misuse, did not consider mild dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect. I’ve already explained this effect to you previously.

“when you say there is no valid proof of any vampires, but scientifically just because there is no valid proof doesn’t prove that there’s no vampires, just because vampires symptoms in humans are not apparent doesn’t mean blah, blah, blah…”

Anti-flurodiationists are not the sharpest tools in the box. It’s one painfully dumb argument after another.

History F was introduced 1st introduced as additive to water around 1950
If its F is so good at 1 ppm why the sudden reduction in recent years(2011 I believe) to 0.7 ppm WOW we have a safety margin for toxicity of 0.3 ppm thats simply amazing protection for our children and it only took 50-60 years for the pro F people to recognize this

Ian, I imagine you have a lot invested in being able to label 0.7ppm in water fluoride as toxic.
Then you can run around mentioning it at every opportunity.
“toxic waste” this – “toxic levels of fluoride” that.

Knowing of course, that most people associate the term toxic with serious health damaging or life threatening cases of poisoning.

It becomes misleading. Deliberately so.
There is a term for it. It’s called being disingenuous.

Minor cosmetic discolouration with an associated and positive increase in dental health doesn’t fit the bill.

Recent studies and the increasing use of other forms of fluoride application have brought this change on.Usually dental fluorosis is a mild condition and as per normal the anti groups jump on it as a major condition to leach some mileage out of it to promote their fantasy. In saying that, is is not a copout, the water borne fluoride is still the best way to have a continuous supply of fluoride on the teeth, The so called high fluoride hit from toothpaste is not as regulated as the water borne method, and requires more input from the recipient in the form of remembering to brush your teeth twice a day.as well as not using too much, as this form of treatment can be 100 times higher than water borne fluoride. There are some households that dont even have a toothbrush each. Tooth paste is not top of the shopping list and these people are the most likely to have tooth decay due to the use of cheap soft drinks

Ian, I have no idea as to what “name calling” you refer, and really don’t care. What I post are facts. I also have no idea as to your point with the link to ADA ethics, and certainly couldn’t care less about that either. Antifluoridationists have so little regard for truth and ethics that is always amusing to me when one attempts to make such ridiculous allegations.

As far your question in regard to 0.7 ppm, the current recommended optimal level of fluoride as established by the US Department of Health and Human
Services is a range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm, the optimal level being that concentration at which will occur maximum dental decay prevention with no adverse effects. In 2011, in recognition of increased exposure to fluoride from dental products and other sources, since the optimal range was initially established, the US CDC recommended that the optimal range be eliminated, replaced with the optimal level simply being the low end of that range, which is 0.7 ppm. The US DHHS has not yet formally adopted that recommendation, but it is expected to do so.

This is an example of regulatory bodies doing their job of oversight exactly as they should do, and demonstrates that proper oversight is in place. It is not a negative as antifluoridationists, very predictably, attempt to portray it to be.

Knowing of course, that most people associate the term toxic with serious health damaging or life threatening cases of poisoning.

It’s funny how the English language keeps changing with these people.
Toxic used to mean, well, toxic.
Enormous used to be connected with bigness somehow.
Attacking someone etc.
These words in the hands of anti-fluoridationists are (dare I say it?)….diluted.

Very good! So you DO actually understand that even water is toxic in improper amounts. In the correct concentration it is entirely safe to consume. Same with fluoride….toxic at improper levels, entirely safe at 0.7 ppm.

The Institute of Medicine has established an upper limit of daily fluoride intake before adverse effects may occur, long or short term, to be 10 mg. The CDC estimates that 75% of daily fluoride intake to be from the water. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (mg/liter=ppm). Using these figures, it is easy to determine your total daily intake of fluoride from all sources.

The average daily water consumption by adults is 2-3 liters. Even if one drinks an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day, the total fluoride intake is 5.6 mg, only slightly more than half the daily upper limit.

Cedric, Chris & Richard …all substances are toxic it is the amount….time relationship ….drinking too much water will kill if it consumed in too short a time frame….

Then bitching about water fluoridation being “toxic” is a stupid thing to do.
You’d have to work really, really hard to get a toxic level of fluoride from drinking water, in much the same way as you’d have work at drinking a toxic level of water.

…?…ie what is the amount, from all sources, in my diet which causes toxicity….

Seriously?
This was beyond your ability to find out?
Or did you think that science didn’t already know about this or something?
The mind boggles.
Google is not your friend.

These corrosive hazardous waste pollutants & co-contaminants aka ‘water fluoridation’ is not only in the water supplies it’s is of course, through our food chain and environment.

Corporate `sponsorship` of our Dental Schools in Australian Universities etc., is (allegedly) like leaving the wolves to mind the lambs. Many (allegedly) say that this is a most serious conflicts of interests and complete loss of ethics and integrity.

The informed and independently researched/unbiased members of the population are sick of the fact that for decades the Fluoridation Lobby remain so politically powerful and media powerful – and that’s the only way these dangerously corrosive hazardous waste pollutants fluorosilicic acid/silicofluorides and co-contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium etc., (known as water fluoridation chemicals) (also added is aluminium sulphate) continues to be disposed of into our drinking water supplies and hence also contaminating our food chain – the truth never gets to the people by way of headlines in a totally controlled corporate mainstream media – this is appalling.

Also many of the population are still unaware because authorities lie and say the ‘fluoride’ is natural – this is absolutely deceptive and a cover-up.
This is what they are consuming in their water, of course it’s all through the food chain, and they bath their babies, kids, themselves and their pets in these hazardous waste pollutants – we the population, pets and environment polluted with this hazardous waste known as water fluoridation.

All thinking people must ask, who in their right minds would force an entire population to consume this in everything we eat, drink and bathe in, also ask why would Dentists and doctors fight to the death to enforce this pollutant on us all & our environment if as they say it is effective at reducing dental decay by between 30 & 60% thus reducing their income. What BS ! They say it is safe and effective and Australia wide and USA all in dental crisis after decades of the poison fluoridation commencing firstly in Australia 1953 and USA in 1945.

Dr David Kennedy DDS speaking about how the EPA was ordered to lie about the safety of water fluoridation because it was/is bought and sold by industry: Water Fluoridation Regulations Are Based on Lies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrfORyiET3o

“We are all affected by this potentially dangerous fraud: The convincing of Governments and people generally that it is ethical, safe and beneficial to medicate, compulsorily, many millions of people throughout their lives with small but uncontrollable doses of a cumulative and very toxic substance because of the notion that it reduces the prevalence of dental decay. All this, although neither its safety nor any scientifically-proved reduction in the number of decayed teeth has been demonstrated.”http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/fia-report-archives/

~~

‘Fluoridation has not been shown to be safe and effective’
Cities in Canada are also abandoning the practice. The most recent are cities like Quebec City, Waterloo, Calgary and Windsor. Those cities finally decided to stop wasting their money on toxic waste (fluoridation chemicals) that not only are no longer effective to prevent decay but are likely harmful to humans and the environment.

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS
Professor Emeritus and former Head, Preventive Dentistry
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Torontohttp://www.madhunt.com/hardy-limebeck-column-20130930.html
~~
Dr. Robert Gammal BDS
To Fluoridate or Not
an ethical and health issue which affects everyone’s health
A Submission to Councils, Health Departments and People
October, 2013

Cedric Katesby
thanks for the reference to dr google please supply with a link showing exactly at what level toxicity commences

I can find recommended “safe ” levels(thanks Steve) based on a 50+ year trail but no study showing when F actually damages humans
Cosmetic fluorsis is obviously not toxic in your opinion (and that of most of the pro camp) but there is no clearly defined level where this happens…just a proposed safe level
I guess you could say a single scratch on your car is only cosmetic…but I would suggest it is damaged…..

thanks Richard Christie what I had in mind was mg /kg & tests on sufficient sample populations where F intake is varied and mg amount is known exactly…..the diet should preferable be devoid of other halogens (chlorine & bromide in particular Iodine is required for life) as possible to avoid possible synergistic effects

In order understand how one person could so garble things in one comment, as you have done, one only needs to look at the sources you cite……..a little, biased antifluoridationist website, “fluorideinformationaustralia” which is full of the same misinformation as all other little biased antifluoridationist websites, and an antifluoridationist blog, “afamildura” maintained by an antifluoridationist who has very little idea of what he’s talking about.

Instead of simply regurgitating nonsense from these sites, has it ever occurred to you to seek accurate information on water fluoridation, which is readily available to you and everyone else, from reliable, respected, and primary sources?

A “single scratch on my car” is readily, and inexpensively removed if it bothers me. However, it is probably not noticeable except upon close examination, and will not have been caused by a process that makes my entire car more scratch resistant.

As far as your desire for threshold of fluoride toxicity, let’s focus on water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, okay? Regardless of the line you seek for toxicity, fluoridated water falls far below it. The IOM daily upper limit of total fluoride intake from all sources before adverse effects may occur, is 10 mg. Before this level is reached, water toxicity would be your problem, not fluoride. Where your concern for the exact line of chlorine toxicity?

Ian, why don’t you design the study you wish to occur in which fluoride intake is “known exactly”. Be sure and take into account those who live in non fluoridated areas but work or school in fluoridated areas, and vice versa. Probably will need them to take water samples from every water fountain, bathroom faucet, and restaurant from which they ingest food and water, and have them analyzed for fluoride content. Probably will need them to take samples of Grandma’s food and water, and/or that from wherever else in the world they may visit for work, pleasure, or other reasons. You’ll also want them to write down the exact fluoride content of each morsel of food they eat at home, and from every drink of beverage they consume, carefully measuring total content divided by exact amount consumed. Probably will require a precise weight scale…….

Or, you can realize, as did Levy in his Iowa study, that is impossible to measure exactly the total fluoride intake from all sources, given the enormous number of uncontrollable variables, and instead be satisfied with the knowledge that total daily fluoride intake from all sources falls far short of established upper limits before adverse effects will occur.

Ok, looking at one of Diane’s “references”, “fluorideinformationaustralia”, which would be far more accurately “fluoridemisinformationaustralia”, it is stated

“It is simply assumed by high school science teachers and supporters of fluoridation that all fluoride compounds dissociate entirely into fluoride ions, and harmless hydration compounds of silicon. Pure fluoride solutions do behave relatively predictably, both over the permissible pH range of municipal water supplies and in the extremely acidic environment of the human stomach. However, fluorosilicates dissociate in highly complex fashion in water, with an amazing range of complex derivatives forming at different pH values, none of whose toxicological properties has been adequately investigated. In other words, we don’t really know much about their effects on our health.”

So, it appears that Dr. William F. Finney is a high school science teacher. His paper in which it is concluded that no HFA intermediates are observable after hydrolysis, must just be a semester term paper or something.

“The dissociation of hexafluorosilicate has been reinvestigated due to recent suggestions that fluorosilicate intermediates may be present in appreciable concentrations in drinking water. 19F NMR spectroscopy has been used to search for intermediates in the hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicate. No intermediates were observable at 10(-5) M concentrations under excess fluoride forcing conditions over the pH range of 3.5-5.”

And It appears that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) …..must just be “supporters of fluoridation”, because they state:

“Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation. These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance to be evaluated is the fluoride ion (F-).”

—–SCHER
Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water 16 May, 2011

And looking at another of Diane’s “references”, Dr. Richard Sauerheber, whose paper she cites. Well, it appears that Dr. Sauerheber has a really neat tie-in to another of Diane’s sterling “references”, the website with the catchy, and very objective sounding, “fluoride-class-action.com”, which is the website of “Attorney Deal”, the esteemed member of the bar and Connett affiliate, who seemingly spends his time in pursuit of class action attempts against fluoridation. It seems that the purely objective Dr. Sauerheber is the “scientific consultant” for “Attorney Deal”. Unless Dr. Sauerheber very generously volunteers his time working for “Attorney Deal”, it is probably a safe assumption that Dr. Sauerheber is paid by the fluoride opponent attorney who apparently seeks to make money off of lawsuits against water fluoridation.

Small world, isn’t it? All antifluoridationist roads seem to lead back to Connett……..

well Diane the question I have for you is how this nasty acid gets past all the health authority’s worldwide to get in the water. And I bet you are not making any noise about Folic acid in your bread As usual with your type ,very selective. Looking at some of your links ,they site known activists and no real research documents, because there is non that say fluoride is dangerous to humans in the .7PPM range

Steve cosmetic damage is still a cost to the system…that’s the point..dental fluorsis is cosmetic and may be easily fixed as you say but at the end of day it is still damage
There are protocols for testing, designed by smarter people than me, for food additives and drugs not sure how you would classify F. I would certainly be prepared to contribute towards the cost of such independent testing if the correct protocols are in place. The result should clarify either for or against.
Human populations are as you say very difficult to test for the reasons stated especially if we are to look at long term chronic exposure, Acute is much easier (accidents leading to harm(poisoning) or death), therefore in the case of chronic all food, water, possible exposure by absorption through skin, all must be strictly controlled over a long period.
With humans you could only do with with small sample which would be declared invalid for some of the reasons you stated and sample size and the time required for the human trials
That only leaves the tried & tested protocols. Paul & Ken would likely have some ideas on the type of protocols required
The reason for mentioning other halides eg chlorine is they all belong to a group of chemical (periodic table) that react similarly and form mixed halide compound under certain conditions so it would be logical (no papers I could find) from a chemical point of view that the oxidation effects of these on the human body would be similar and therefore could have an addictive effect though Iodide is supposed to protective as far as F and thyroid hormones
(google iodine protective of fluoride if you want more) Also Both F & chlorine are used in pesticides
Hope this clears this issue,

Ian, evidently I am not making myself clear. Mild dental fluorosis is not “damage”, it is a non-issue that antifluoridationists have tried their utmost to trump up into being a major disorder because they have nothing else. Mild dental fluorosis was not considered by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride to be an adverse effect. It is not considered by many to even be undesirable, due to the fact that mildly fluorosed teeth have been demonstrated by Kumar to be more resistant to decay. You seem not to understand that the costs incurred by individuals and society due to preventable, untreated dental disease are astronomically greater than any related to dental fluorosis. If you are concerned about the cosmetics of barely detectable white spots on teeth then you should be scared to death about the cosmetics of black dental decay.

If you want to attempt to find your line of toxicity, feel free. The margin between what can be ingested on a daily basis and that which will cause adverse effects is more than enough to allay any fears of toxicity related to water fluoridated at 0,7 ppm.

Steven, I assume tooth enamel varies in colour naturally across a population. By naturally, I include other reasons including exposure to other things, take extreme example of tetracycline. Is this not so?

Exactly, Richard. Enamel varies in shade from individual to individual. This can be intrinsic or extrinsic (stain). Interuption in enamel development can occur for various reasons, fluorosis being but one. Trauma to the oral area during tooth development can cause different coloration at the point on the tooth which is in development at the time of the trauma. Same for illness. Systemic illness can cause an interuption in enamel development, as can, as you mentioned, certain medications, and of course fluoride. Far more often than not when people claim they can easily spot dental fluorosis, they are either seeing discolorations of teeth due to factors other than fluoride, or are seeing the effects of exposure to much higher levels of fluoride than are present in fluoridated water, well water for example, or high concentrations of environmental fluoride such as that which may have been emitted into the air by industry. Discolorations due to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm will not be noticeable at normal speaking distances, under normal lighting, and probably not even at distances closer than that unless the person viewing it is specifically looking at the teeth for signs of fluorosis.

Zac, I am not approving your comment and will moderate future comments of yours. It is too antagonistic and off subject. We are attempting to moderate comments in this current debate to prevent the usually hostility, abuse, trolling and copypasta normally experienced on this topic. This is something both I and Paul Connett agreed on as a condition for the exchange. So far I think this has worked well and the discussion has been really good and informative.

Feel free to make comments relevant to the articles and keep out the antagonistic material and I will approve them. We welcome honest discussion with comment made in good faith.

U.S. court decisions have rejected the argument that fluoride is a “medication” that
should not be allowed in water. The American Journal of Public Health summarized one
of these rulings, noting that “fluoride is not a medication, but rather a nutrient found
naturally in some areas but deficient in others.”

Under the guise of being open-minded and science oriented, you present nothing more than the same, stale arguments against fluoridation that have been presented by antifluoridationists since this public health initiative began 68 years ago. The “forced medication” nonsense dates back to the ’40s and ’50s with the John Birch Society leading the way with that. To say that “now it is in dispute whether it is safe or not” demonstrates either a total ignorance of the history of this initiative, or an intentional effort to mislead the public, neither of which belong in an intelligent discussion. This “dispute” has been presented by antifluoridationists since day one of fluoridation. If you want to contribute anything of significance to the issue my suggestion is for you to first properly educate yourself on it from reliable, respected and original sources.

I believed in water fluoridation for more than 30 years. But then I found out it was the #1 trigger for my chronic migraine headaches. Fluoride is NOT right for everyone and no matter what the science says, putting it in the public water is unconscionable. It’s a medicine I can’t take and don’t want.

I grew up in California and started drinking fluoridated water in 1976. Eight years later, I got my first migraine though we have no family history. I tried everything to prevent and treat them: diet changes, exercise, sleep, meditation, yoga, acupuncture, on and on and on. I had headaches a few times a month for the first 20 years. Then about 10 years ago, the headaches progressed to a daily occurrence. I had a painful headache every single day!

Then last December, someone suggested fluoridated water might be causing the headaches. I was such a believer in fluoride’s safety, it took a few months for me to give it a try. But eventually I did.

Within 3 weeks my daily headaches were gone. It’s been 8 months and my entire life is improved; I’m no longer in chronic pain. The only headaches I get now are triggered by predictable causes, like wine. When I control these items, I have no headaches. 30 years of pain gone, just from cutting out fluoridated water. Mystery solved. I can’t tell you what this has meant to my quality of life.

Those who are pro-fluoride argue the benefits for teeth and don’t seem to believe in the negative side effects for the rest of the body. I’ve had my fair share of cavities and tooth decay. But even if I hadn’t, I’d say I should have been given the choice. No one had the right to inflict years of pain upon me. I’m sure the public health officials and voters thought they were helping me. But giving a one-size-fits all medication to every member of society without consideration of their medical history or sensitivity to medication is not fair, ethical or effective.

PS: I’ve been reading the comments on the other pages and anticipate I’ll be challenged shortly esp. about the other additives in water. Before you do, let me say I’ve been testing my theory on fluoride vs. other nasty stuff in water, like chlorine. I have been able to test my theory that it’s the fluoride and nothing else by reintroducing fluoridated toothpaste after taking a break when I was in a headache-free phase. This is how I figure out all the items that trigger headaches; cut them out, then reintroduce and see what happens. In this case, my headaches came back. Same with fluoride treatments from the dentist. Same with fluoride from other sources, like grape juice. Each time I reintroduce, the headaches are back. This is why I believe it’s fluoride and not just the general additives in tap water.

Hi there – By nasty, I meant harmful. Should have said that. I understand the job it does killing those things you mention. I’m not arguing against it. I’m saying I’m confident it’s not the chlorine, or other water ingredients, that are giving me headaches.

Your sarcasm is not necessary, Stephen. I get that my story is anecdotal and I know that my tests are unscientific. I’m sharing because I’m concerned about the safety of fluoride. I’d like to reiterate that I was extremely skeptical. I did NOT expect that the elimination of all sources of fluoride would help with my headaches. However, I did expect that the other things I tried over the years would work; they didn’t. I would be grateful if you can help me by sharing the names or links to studies that prove there is no negative impact to the rest of the body, esp. the brain, from long term exposure to fluoride? I haven’t been able to find these. Those studies I have found that address other parts of the body support the case of those against fluoride and many say they are inconclusive. So which studies about the body are conclusive and prove not safety for the body?

Christopher, as I’m sure you understand, it’s very difficult to measure the intake of any substance we consume outside of a lab setting. And with the introduction of pesticides containing fluoride, this makes it especially hard. I’ve tried to measure intake, but it’s been very hard without lab equipment. But yes, I definitely cut out sources when I discover they trigger migraines.

well julie there had been fluodated water in the U.S.A for 68 years with 73%of the population taking it. If there was anything that was causing major health issues ,I,m sure the 3200+ research papers would have sited it by now.Just go to any of the major health websites and you will find there full support of fluoride The leading health and medical organizations support water fluoridation. This list includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association, the Institute of Medicine and the American Academy of Family Physicians. We can trust their knowledge and expertise.

Julie, demanding proof of a negative is a standard antifluoridationist tactic which, by design, creates an endless process of putting out unsubstantiated claims then demanding proof that they are invalid. This is not valid science. You must first have valid evidence that a problem exists before credibly demanding proof that it does not. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, your anecdotal study notwithstanding.

Steve – I’m demanding proof of a positive. Is it positively safe? Shouldn’t that be a requirement for anything you give to every member of a community, city or country? If you can’t prove its safe, why is it in my water? Just because it’s been in use for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s safe. People have been using aspirin for more than 100 years. People have been eating iron since the dawn of time. Does that mean those items are recommended and safe for everyone? Or that any level consumed is OK? Or that these items won’t damage one part of your body while helping another? Of course not, so why should we say that any level of fluoride is safe for a society of citizens with all sorts of backgrounds, illnesses or sensitivities?

I’m just not clear on the reasons for giving everyone fluoride via water we can’t live without. Why can’t those of you who want it, buy it at the store with your toothpaste, rinse and floss? There are many who shouldn’t consume fluoride, so why give it to all of us?

Hi Christopher – I’m confident because I used the same approach with fluoride as I’ve used with any other thing that I’ve suspected gives me migraines. The approach I take is like allergy testing: I eliminate the item completely, wait until I’m headache free for more than a month, then I reintroduce it without changing anything else, then I wait. When I reintroduced fluoride, I didn’t use tap water, I used toothpaste. Then I tried fluoride supplement pills. Then I tried it with grape-juice, chicken nuggets and other items people have claimed have high amounts of fluoride. I also get headaches from Tylenol, blue cheese, sleep deprivation … fluoride is not the only trigger. So of course I avoid all those things too.

I’ve been testing for 30 years and have it down to a good routine. There are other factors: I didn’t get headaches when I lived in non-fluoridated cities; when I recently moved and used fluoridated toothpaste for 2 weeks, my headaches came back, etc. Also, when I visit non-fluoridated cities, I drink the tap water and I’m fine (I did this for 2 full weeks over the summer).

It’s only been 8 months and I would gladly participate in a controlled study if there was one. Anyone who knows me understands how much I’ve done to find the cause of these migraines. I’ve had MRIs (at the insistence of my worried father), tried medication, changed all sots of things in my life, but nothing got rid of the daily headache. That is until I removed fluoride. I have been very surprised to learn this is the cause. I wish it weren’t; it’s expensive to avoid fluoridated water where I live.

Julie, it is not possible to prove guaranteed safety of ANYTHING. It would make no difference how much proof was provided on the safety of fluoridation. There would always be an endless chain of unsubstantiated claims made with demands for proof that they are not true. This is demanding proof of a negative and is exactly what you are doing, i.e. “There could be a problem here, so prove that there is not”. The fallacy of your argument about fluoride and your headaches is that even in non-fluoridated areas you were still ingesting fluoride in your water, as it exists there naturally, in foods that were grown and/or produced using fluoridated water and in beverages which contain fluoride. That you didn’t have headaches when living in these cities is clear evidence that fluoridated water is not your problem.

Provide valid evidence that a problem exists with fluoridated water and you may have a credible demand for proof that there is not. Otherwise you do not.

Steve, Even if fluoride didn’t cause my headaches, which is does, you still haven’t answered: Why can’t those of you who want it, buy it at the store with your toothpaste, rinse and floss? There are many who shouldn’t consume fluoride, so why give it to all of us?

Julie, your question about buying fluoride at a store raises the issue of social policy. Interventions like water fluoridation, salt fluoridation and iodisation, etc., are social health policies. There will always be people who oppose them but in a society there are always gives and takes. We need to balance freedom of choice against social good. Science can inform this decision of balance but it cannot make the decision for us. Often misrepresentation of science arises because people are using science as a proxy for values issues.

In his last response Paul avoided this issue as he felt my comments on it were a personal attack on hike. However, it is a basic issues which I hope we can return to in later articles.

Julie,
You seem to be confused when you say there are many (people) who shouldn’t consume fluoride.
As fluoride is ever present in our air, water, food and bodies – can please qualify what on earth you mean?

In this world there is no way you cannot get fluoride, it is a natural mineral in everything you consume and it is also produced by volcanic activity ,and added to the air, so the statement “why give it to all of us” is nor relevant, all that we do is adjust the level of fluoride to the optimim level for teeth repair, The decision to fluodate is made for the greater good of the community . there will alway be some people who for personal reasons do not like it , but that is life, Everybody has some community decisions that they question

Julie, you clearly demonstrate my point that fluoride opposition is grounded in personal ideology, not facts or science. In spite of my having provided you with the fact that you were still consuming fluoride when you claim your headaches ceased, you deny the facts and persist with your belief that fluoride is the root of your problem. This would be the case no matter how much proof of safety is provided to you. As long as that proof differs from your ideological objection to fluoridation, you will simply deny it. Ken has already very nicely addressed your question as to why add it to water, so no point in my adding else to that. Steven D. Slott, DDS

Thanks Ken. I do appreciate this debate and what you’re doing here. I really wish the science would answer my questions, but as it does not, you’re right, I’m left to the moral argument of asking to just have it kept it out of my water. I am still searching for answers. I can spend all day trying to prove fluoride causes my migraines. I’ll never satisfy this group; and that’s OK. My methods are not proven but I know a high amount of fluoride is a trigger just like you know what food gives you an upset stomach. Trial and error. Nothing else changed for me other than removing fluoride. 10 years of daily headaches are gone. I don’t expect that to be enough for the scientific community, but it’s enough for me. And I wish it were enough to encourage a second look at fluoridation.

I do worry for others. My motivations are as genuine as your desire to help the community improve their dental health. I say it shouldn’t be in the water because my health is as important as the next person’s. There are other ways to get fluoride than adding it to the water. We don’t have to give it to everyone. We chose to and I’m hoping as a collective we will reconsider.

And Christopher you seem to be confusing naturally occurring fluoride with the man-made versions used in most community water and to manufacture pesticides. I’ve checked the naturally occurring fluoride levels in those cities where I lived and didn’t get headaches, and they were not even close to the amount that is added to fluoridate with chemicals (.02ppm vs. the average of .07-1.3ppm; I started getting fluoride in the 70s when levels were much higher). Only 10% of the US, where I live, gets natural fluoride. Everywhere I’ve lived gets the man-made kind. And just because I can tolerate small amounts of fluoride doesn’t mean higher doses can’t harm me and give me headaches.

As for those who shouldn’t consume fluoride, off the top of my head the short list would be infants, people with kidney disease, people with HIV. These are recommendations from groups like the CDC and National Kidney Foundation.

Steve, Your support of fluoridation is also ideological. It’s not a character flaw. You have your ideology and I have mine.

Yes, I was still consuming smaller amounts of fluoride when my headaches ceased, but not as much. To say that because I can tolerate small amounts means I have no issues with fluoride is an oversimplification. Perhaps you can have 1 or 2 beers and be fine. What happens when you drink 15 or 20? Our bodies can tolerate small doses of many things, but this does not mean that higher doses can’t have a negative impact. Or that what is tolerable for you is also tolerable for me.

I believe we’re overdosing many with fluoride. And nothing I’ve read in the arguments here has convinced me that the benefits outweigh the risk. I do believe water fluoridation is a risky practice and I hope it ceases one day very soon.

Julie – there is absolutely no difference between “man made” fluoride and “natural” fluoride. Yes, the concentration could be important – often the natural levels are higher than for optimally fluoridated water. Anyway, your quote of 0.02 seems exceptionally low. In our area the source water is around 0.2-0.3 ppm and peaks about 0.6 ppm.

Everyone gets natural fluoride – even if it is only at 0.02 ppm in the drinking water – but more normally it would be around 0.1 ppm or greater. Then of course you get it in your food, etc.

Be careful when you refer to recommendations. The recommendations for bottle fed infants is always being misquoted by anti-fluoride activists. There is usually no warning of danger, even though intake may approach and sometimes exceed recommended maxima. The usual statement that parents who are concerned about this should occasionally use non-fluoridated water is taken right out of context.

My advice is to look carefully at the specific recommendations before relying on other’s interpretations.

In the end I strongly believe that decisions like this should be made democratically. Unfortunately our local experience has been that activists have been subverting the democratic process – helped by the fact that local body politics seems to attract some weird people here. Even though our referendum decisively showed support for fluoridation we still have to work to try to prevent our local councillors from ignoring the voice of the voters. They are being pressured to do so by the anti-fluoridation activists.

Julie there is no such thing as “man-made” fluoride. Fluoride in water “naturally” is fluoride ions which are released from calcium fluoride. Calcium fluoride is picked up from rocks as water courses over it. The substance used to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rocks as a co-product of the process which also extracts the other co-product phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is utilized in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into the food that we eat. The HFA co-product of this process is diluted to a 23% aqueous solution which is then utilized to fluoridate water systems. When the HFA is added to water, it immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates) into fluoride ions and trace contaminants. The HFA no longer exists in that water after that point. The fluoride ions released by the HFA are identical to those fluoride ions released by the calcium fluoride. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion regardless of its source. The trace contaminants are in such miniscule concentrations that they pose no threat, whatsoever, of adverse effect.

Hopefully, you can understand from this explanation that there us absolutely no difference between fluoride ions which are in water “naturally” and those added with HFA. They are identical. This is just elementary chemistry.

Too, you need to understand that 0.7 ppm fluoride is an extremely miniscule amount. It is not a “high” concentration of fluoride by any stretch of the imagination. The difference between 0.2 ppm and 0.7 ppm in a water supply is not going to cause your headaches or any other adverse effects. Comparing the difference between 1-2 beers and 15-20 beers to the difference between 0.2 ppm and 0.7 ppm fluoride is so ludicrous as to not warrant any further discussion. Understand that ppm means 1part one substance per one million parts of the other.

You just need to reconcile yourself to the fact that although you have convinced yourself that fluoridated water is responsible for your headaches, the facts clearly indicate otherwise.

Julie, there is a large chasm in methodology between your use of confirmatory bias over a suspicion you harbour regarding fluoride and headaches to the more usual home screening of foodstuffs etc for allergenic effect as even recommended by health practitioners.

When a doctor or dietitian suggests removing and reintroducing foodstuffs etc to ascertain effect they are
1. dealing with known potential allergens, not a substance with no proven links to the symptoms claimed (fluoride/headaches)
2. the procedural results of home/dietary allergen screening are regarded as indicative only and are usually then clinically tested with dermatological scratch tests etc.

Hi Ken – Your comment came to my email, so I wanted to respond quickly on one point. For one city I lived in for 3 years headache free, my mistake their report shows .03ppm. Here is the report. https://www.calwater.com/docs/ccr/2012/ch-ch-2012.pdf. Yes, this does seem very low.

My comparison of beer was to make the point that we all have different body chemistry and we all tolerate things differently. Why don’t you address that point instead of focusing on the metaphor? I’m not a scientist or doctor; I’ve never claimed to be. And I never claimed the elimination diet I’m following is lab-approved.

As for Christopher’s comment, I’m bowing out because it’s really pointless to allow myself to continue to be attacked by all of you. You’ve been dismissing of everything I have to say. It’s clear you don’t believe my story. You’re putting me into a box with a group of people you obviously dislike. You think I’m flat our wrong or that I’m lying. You have absolutely no willingness to consider that I may be speaking truth despite the line at the top of this page about that mind not working if it’s closed. If you knew my personal integrity and history, you would listen. But you don’t know me, so it’s easier to write me off as a fool.

That’s fine. You support fluoride. I used to as well, I get it. But it’s clear you have no interest in me and my personal victory, and more importantly you don’t care to consider that my victory may be an indicator that your belief may need to be reconsidered and that very thing you support may be hurting the people you want to help. I came here looking for answers, not to be lambasted. I’m bowing out so you can take your cheap, dismissive shots at someone else. Have fun with that.

Julie, you are not here looking for answers. We gave those to you and you refused to accept them because they don’t fit the ideology you seem so desperate for us to believe. You are here to profess your opinions, not obtain answers. It is not our minds which are closed. You are upset because we decline to accept your conclusions, refusing to understand that they are simply not borne out by basic facts. It’s akin to someone declaring that the Earth is square then getting upset with those who refuse to accept that. This is a microcosm of the whole antifluoridationist movement. A small, yet very vocal group who are so set in their ideology that they refuse to see what is clearly in front of them. A complete denial of facts and reality.

Julie, it is a pity you feel we are not appreciating you adequately here. But I do not think you have been “lambasted” or the subject of “cheap. Dismissive shot.” Perhaps you feel that way because your arguments have not been accepted – but that is life.

In my upcoming response to Paul I will refer to this aspect a bit. How science often becomes a substitute for values and politics and the scientific discussion a proxy for an ethics discussion. Personally I think we should try to have that ethics discussion – – but it does require people to stop making scientific claims which have no proper support.

I can assure you I do get lambasted and worse. By moderating this discussion I have excluded people who habitually do this. But the debate is being followed and discussed in several Facebook pages. On some of those I am called a moron, said to be suffering from dementia, and regularly get hateful comments fired at me.

It is refreshing for me to have such a high quality discussion here with good comments from both side of the debate.

Once again professing to know what I’m about. My mind is open enough to reconsider what I believed wholeheartedly for 30 years. I read all the papers in this debate looking for information. I did get some answers, but my mistake was commenting. I see from googling your name Steve that you’re all over the Internet defending fluoride. Strong beliefs? Or should we wonder who you work for? Clearly being very vocal is OK when it’s you and not those whom oppose you.

I’m not in denial about the facts … the fact is when I take fluoride, I buckle over in pain shortly afterwards. I guess after all this back and forth I realize that’s enough for me.

Hi Ken – Since Steve’s first comment was a cynical remark about my story being published in a Fluoride journal when I never claimed to be a scientist … well, that felt very dismissive. I suppose he’s just a poster like me and not affiliated with your site. Your comments have been great, which is why I wanted to respond when I read your last note. I guess I didn’t realize the passions. I really don’t think less of anyone who is on the side of fluoride. I just wanted you all to hear an honest account, a personal experience. Science gives us the data, but this is an issue about people in the end. Best of luck with your debates. I’ll come back and read them … will just resist commenting (something I’m clearly not very good at :-).

Another antifluoridationist habit…..money. Always ironic to me that antifluoridationists constantly allege that fluoridation proponents are being paid, somehow. Why the obsession with that is beyond me, but the only ones I know who are profiting from this issue are Paul Connett, his lobbyist, William Hirzy, and whomever else is paid within the FAN organization. It just seems to be beyond their scope of comprehension that a sense of responsibility to profession and fellow man could be motivation enough without being paid. This speaks volumes about the antifluoridationist mindset.

Actually, Julie, Steve’s comment about publishing in Fluoride was a dig at the journal, not at you. In my next article I provide just such an example – a paper by a non-scientist being simply an anecdotal report such as yours. Not normally the thing accepted by reputable journals – but that is Fluoride for you.

You’ve been dismissing of everything I have to say. It’s clear you don’t believe my story.

How so?
Nobody has denied that you took it upon yourself to test your theory and that you came to a conclusion.

Not a soul has disputed the story,

It’s just that nobody buys into your reasoning and justification for your validation of your theory.

Nobody is being mean to you.

Rather our reactions are because science has a lot of experience at sorting out the validity of evidence. In short, that is what science is all about. Your anecdotal related experiments are scientifically worthless.

Slott is incorrect. All the work I’ve done against fluoridationists and their belief system has been as a volunteer. I already have a job as a college educator. My medical research career spanned many subjects but research exposing industrial fluorides and why they are harmful, illegal, and useless was done on my own time. The article I published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health is available free online at: JEPH 439490.
R Sauerheber

I am fascinated by this discussion yet as another person noted on this blog…
“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?

I have to be convinced that all of these authorities have got it wrong. That requires more than endless repetition each side’s favoured literature.
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”

So why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong?

Oh, Richard, thank you! I forgot about you! Do you work as “Scientific Consultant” for “Attorney Deal” on a volunteer basis? Deal, for those unaware, has a website called “fluoride-class-action.com” which appears devoted entirely to stirring up class action lawsuits against fluoridation, which, of course, have had no success.

So, Richard, do you care to disclose any financial arrangement you have with Deal? If you are paid by him, or helping him to attempt to profit with lawsuits, how do you then expect credibility to be accorded to your paper which is obviously biased against fluoridation?

Even though you have decided to bow out, I will add a little to some points you have raised – you said you would be still reading.

I will approach this from 2 perspectives;

1) Personal and 2) Public
First, your personal point of view.

As with your headaches, I sympathise. Headaches can be quite debilitating.
I have little doubt that you believe fluoride is the culprit. Really. You appear adamant. Unshakeable. I’m not denigrating this belief. This is yours. But it is a belief and it’s not science.

“Fluoride is NOT right for everyone and no matter what the science says, putting it in the public water is unconscionable.”
This says it all really, no matter the facts, the science, the truth etc, just put your fingers in your ears and shout blah blah blah.

“It’s a medicine….”
No it’s not.

“I can’t take and don’t want.”.
You actually can take it, it’s in already in the water you drink, the air you breathe and the body you live in. I think you need to be honest hear and define quantities and sources – perhaps take a scientific approach.
As for not wanting it, you have made this quite clear. Nevertheless, none of this is particularly relevant when public health issues need to be considered.

The second and by far more relevant perspective involves the public arena.
This blog is concerns a debate on the fluoridation of public drinking water. I find it particularly disturbing that you have taken your personal objection, (however unscientific and inconsistent) to fluoride and transposed it upon the public as a whole.
Because you think its bad for YOU, you think it is bad for everybody else.

As you say, never mind the science. Forget the (scientifically proven) health benefits to millions of other people; poor people, disadvantaged people, infants, children.
Its all about you. If you can claim one less headache then it’s all worthwhile.

Also, never mind the fact that you are educated and have the resources to avoid the locus of your non scientifically and inconsistently perceived belief – you have a RIGHT to it. Sod everyone else.

I oppose more because of the lead than the fluoride. Lead levels in tap water can be higher even than fluoride levels, because the fluoride used dissolves lead out of pipes and faucets. All agree that even small amounts of lead are toxic. See: See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.

Usually the homes, apartments, commercial buildings that have the most lead in their pipes and fittings are the oldest ones. They often contain lead-brass pipe and lead-copper solder. Even new homes contain lead in faucets, up to 8%. Expensive copper pipe is often welded together with copper lead solder.

When Tacoma temporatily stopped fluoridating because of a water shortage, lead levels in drinking water immediately dropped by a half.

Old homes, where poor people tend to live, contain more lead in pipes and faucets. Fluoridationists say they are trying to help the poor, but fluoridation harms the poor most of all by poisoning them with lead.

The amount of lead is high when you add in the lead leached. The amounts of the other contaminants is much smaller. However, to support drinking water fluoridation with fluorosilicic acid, one must assert convincingly that the fluoride, lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and thallium, all working together and potentiating the effect together, are not harmful. Who can make such an assurance. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the amounts of these contaminants causes no harm to those who drink them for life with no control on the amount they consume.

Look at the potential arsenic level for example. NSF’s own documents shows some shipments of fluorosilicic acid, when diluted into drinking water, have produced arsenic levels of up to 1.6 ppb. No one can say that one can drink this much arsenic daily for a lifetime in any amount with absolutely no harm resulting. Arsenic is a type one human carcinogen. Although 1.6 ppb may sound like a small level, remember that atoms are exceedingly small, and so by using Avadro’s method, I calculate that there are up to around 12.8 trillion atoms of arsenic per liter of tap water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm floride ion. That is a lot of atoms floating around looking for cells to poison. There are around 100 trillion cells in the human body, as soon as you drink around eight liters of tap water, there is an arsenic atom for every cell. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/arsenic-and-cancer.

You do not have to be opposed to pharmaceutical grade fluoride used by dentists to be opposed to tap water fluoridation. Pro and anti-fluoridationists agree on one thing: that we are taking in too much fluoride – when you add all sources together. This is why CDC and EPA recommended lowering fluoride concentrations form 1.0 ppm to .7 ppm. They were right to lower it. They just did not lower it enough.

A dentist who believes that fluoride is effective topically, should want drinking water fluoridation to end so that dentists would not have to worry so much about their patients being overdosed when topical treatments of fluoride combined with fluoride from drinking water adds up to too much fluoride.

Fluoridated toothpaste is as big a scam as drinking water fluoridation. All the calcium fluoride which attaches loosely to teeth is swallowed when we drinking orange juice or something else slightly acidic. Fluoridated toothpaste does not significantly remineralize teeth. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridated-toothpaste.

Fluoridation is a faith-based, cult religion by those low level believers. For the chemical corporations that sell it and sit on the NSF board, it is a scam to turn toxic waste into a profit stream.

Sometimes it is hard to find your way out of a religious maze, but the first step is to acknowledge that you have been manipulated, sold a bill of goods, bamboozled, deceived, suckered. You have been the victim of false advertising and a big lie. All these are on a continuum with and should be studied along with mass hypnosis as a technique for manipulating gullible consumers. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoridation-as-mass-hypnosis.

James, normally a comment like yours would not get though moderation. The number of links is excessive (even for this blog which has a limit set around 5). All the links are to one web site which you are clearly promoting. And you have lumped together a very large number of arguments which means you are unable to deal with them in any depth.

However, because there are arguments there which can be discussed I will approve the comment this time. Could you please take into account the issues I raised in your future comments.

Oh dear, Mr Deal gives us another long list of PRATTs we have mostly already disposed of.

But here is the money quote

Christopher asks [well actually, I asked] : ” Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong? The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you.

It’s a conspiracy people. No mechanism provided,

Ultimately, at the bottom of all science denying movements you find a reliance on conspiracy.

First, this is not my website, it is that of Dr. Ken Perrott, who has arranged an excellent online debate between himself and Paul Connett.

I understand that your recent presentation, probably of these same arguments, in Clarksburg, West Virginia was completely refuted by a very knowledgeable fluoridation proponent, leading to the tabling of any further discussion of cessation of fluoridation by that city.

It is always interesting to me that that the one thing that draws fluoridation opposition leaders into comment sections is when I expose the hypocrisy of opponents constantly alleging that fluoridation proponents such as I, are somehow being paid by some unknown entity for our activities. It is only when this arises that I make the point that the only ones I know who are profiting from fluoridation activities, are the fluoride opposition leaders themselves. It is of no concern, whatsoever, to me how much or how little you, Paul, Sauerhaber, Hirzy, or any others connected to FAN make from this issue. The point is that I make absolutely zero from it, and I know of no other fluoridation advocates who make one cent for their efforts. As long as opponents keep raising that issue, I will continue to point out this hypocrisy.

It is also always interesting to note that fluoride opponents, including Paul and now you, constantly cite their own websites as “evidence” of support for their claims, instead of citing original sources from their primary sites. This, to me, is solid evidence of the fear you all seem to have of readers accessing accurate information that has not been filtered and edited through your own sites.

So, let’s first dispense with your argument about leaching of lead in association with HFA. Urbansky and Schock put this issue completely to rest.

“Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead II compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”

Next, let’s address the common confusion that you, Paul, Hirzy, and other opponents have between “pharmaceutical grade fluoride” and that from HFA. As I’m sure you’re aware, Hirzy’s recent petition to the EPA to cease HFA in favor of “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride” was summarily rejected by the EPA due to the fact that they easily discovered an elementary mathematics error by Hirzy which, when corrected, demonstrated his data to show just the opposite of what he had claimed it did.

According to the CDC. Please pay special attention to the next to last paragraph in this quote:

“Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.

The U.S. Pharmacopeia-National Formulary (USP-NF) presents monographs on tests and acceptance criteria for substances and ingredients by manufacturers for pharmaceuticals. The USP 29 NF–24 monograph on sodium fluoride provides no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. That leaves the manufacturer with the responsibility of quality assurance and reporting. Some potential impurities have no restrictions by the USP including arsenic, some heavy metals regulated by the U.S. EPA, and radionuclides.

The USP does not provide specific protection levels for individual contaminants, but tries to establish a relative maximum exposure level of a group of related contaminants. The USP does not include acceptance criteria for fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluorosilicate.

Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.

AWWA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride.”

Next, in regard to arsenic contaminants which may be present in fluoridated water at the tap, your anecdotal opinion and “calculations” are irrelevant. The United States Environmental Agency is the regulatory body of the United States charged with and empowered by the U.S. Government to ensure that the public water supplies are safe for consumption by our citizenry. In carrying out this duty, the EPA has set a maximum level of safety for contaminants, called the maximum contaminant level. (MCL). As a further measure of enduring the safety of the public, however, the EPA does not settle for MCL of water contaminants. Instead, it mandates that all water contaminants must meet the stringent certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 certification requires that no contaminant at the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements. If it did not, it would not be allowed by the EPA. Arsenic, the most prevalent contaminant detected in fluoridated water has been detected in only 50% of the fluoridated water samples tested by NSF. Additionally, in order to detect arsenic in ANY samples, it took 10 times the normal manufacturer recommended amount of HFA in those samples. The maximum amount of arsenic detected in those 50% was only 60% of the maximum allowed under Standard 60, which was only 10% of the EPA MCL. The amount of arsenic was so miniscule that it is not even a certainty that the amount detected using 10 times the normal amount of HFA was not that which already existed in the water “naturally”. Any other contaminants detected in fluoridated water were more miniscule than arsenic.

You may certainly argue your personal, anecdotal opinion on the safety level of arsenic against the scientific findings and standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but I don’t much like your chances.

Next, the CDC and the EPA did not recommend “lowering fluoride concentrations from 1.0 ppm to .7 ppm.” In 2011, in recognition of the fact of more fluoride availability from sources outside water now, than were present when the initial optimal level of fluoride was set as a range between 0.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm, the CDC recommended that the optimal level be changed to simply the lower end of that initial range, 0.7 ppm. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the government entity responsible for establishing the optimal level of fluoride, has not yet affirmed that recommendation, but is expected to do so. This is exactly how our regulatory oversight bodies should work. It is not any sort of negative, as opponents seem set on attempting to portray it.

Your unqualified anecdotal opinions on the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste, or the best manner of remineralizing teeth, are unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

Your thinly veiled attempt at intimidation through threat of legal action is both lame and entirely without merit. I highly doubt that either Simplot or NSF legal departments have given your “notice of potential liability” anything more than a passing glance before deeming them of no merit, whatsoever. Fluorosilic acid meets all Standard 60 certification requirements, with your charge of fraud between utterly ridiculous.

“More than 40 states have laws or regula­tions requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid] to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a con­centration of less than ten percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maxi­mum use level. The EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no known health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples from public water systems to be well below these levels.”

——Reeves TG. Current technology on the engineering aspects of water fluoridation. Paper presented at National Fluoridation Summit, September 8, 2000 Sacramento, CA.

The rest of your “religious cult”, conspiracy nonsense is simply the standard fare of fluoridation opponents when all of their arguments have been refuted. None of it warrants further comment.

You answer my question “Why do you think the mainstream scientific community and health authorities have it so wrong?
With…
“The answer is easy. Big chemical companies will lie for money. With their money they have taken over the agencies which regulate them. The chemical companies have duped the FDA, EPA, CDC, and you. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fda-taken-over-by-the-industries-it-regulates”
So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?
Or that chemical companies are so cunning…so so cunning that they pin tails, nay, thousands of tails on scientists and call them weasels.

Here is an editorial from the Portland, Oregonian which speaks to Mr. Deal’s belief that a corporate conspiracy is manipulating world-wide scientific opinion..

Speaking of the many arguments brought against community water fluoridation the Oregonian said:

“To believe such crackpottery is implicitly to believe the following: That state and federal health agencies are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens, aided by the American Dental Association and, we guess, credulous editorial boards like The Oregonian’s. While we don’t consider any of these groups infallible, or even close, it’s far more likely that fluoridation receives so much mainstream support because it does exactly what it’s supposed to. It reduces the incidence of cavities.”

Perhaps I missed some earth shattering new, but the last legal case involving a fluoridation suit was judge in favor of the defendant, the Metro Water District of Southern California. (August 9, 2011)
References:
Filing:

What is the optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth enamel and dentin which reduces dental caries? Unfortunately, dental caries and caries free dentin and enamel have similar concentrations of fluoride. Therefore, no one knows the optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth.

Once the optimal tooth fluoride concentration is determined, then the optimal serum fluoride concentration can be determined. What is the optimal serum fluoride concentration to reduce dental caries. No one knows. CDC recommends <0.02 ppm serum fluoride concentration. Many in research studies have more than that.

And then, after the optimal serum fluoride concentration is determined, the optimal total fluoride exposure of fluoride can be determined. No one knows. And then, we can determine the optimal fluoride concentration from all sources and adjust water fluoride concentration to make up the deficient fluoride intake in the diet.

Too bad public health promoters of fluoride have gotten the process backwards and talk about optimal fluoride in the water without any clue what is needed in the serum to get the right amount in the teeth.

Scientists and health administrators recommend a concentration 0.5 – 1.0 mg/l. With a mineral that varies considerably over different environments a precise measure within a range is probably not an issue. It has been established kidneys are perfectly capable of excreting excess levels (short of industrial concentrations of course) in fact a retired scientist, now active in the antiflouridation brigade during his professional days conducted the relevant research. I could look him up and quote the reference but he’s not hard to find. the antis seem oblivious to the fact (or determined to ignore it) that fluoride occurs naturally in the environment in varying concentrations. It was the discovery of that fact that resulted in probably the most cost effective measure ever introduced to public health.

So, Bill, you are saying that because Levy was unable to narrow down the optimal level any better than 0.7 ppm due to the presence of too many confounding factors now, that all of the observational studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation, should be discarded? Given that there have been no proven adverse effects of water fluoridated at the optimal level, we should abandon the initiative because we are not 100% sure whether the optimal level is 0.6, 0.7 or 0.8 ppm?

Dr. Osmunson’s search for the perfect blood/plasma/serum level for fluoride is only important to those who mistakenly believe that the fluoride ion has more in common with cancer chemotherapy than table salt.

With about 68 years of large population application we well know that a precise individual “dose” to create the “right” blood level is not important. There are a great many natural dietary substances for which exact dosing is not important.

No one worries about a precise “dose” for chloride or iodide, fluoride’s halide cousins. We don’t calculate our daily dose of salt, vitamin D, calcium or a bunch of other minerals and vitamins and dietary substances.

Fluoride is the 13th most common elemental material in the earth’s cruse, more common than carbon the basis of all life. Mammals and human’s have had eons of experience with low level fluoride in water. We do just fine with a wide range of intakes. Dr. Osmunson’s concern ignores the reality of all organisms interaction with the natural environment.

What we do know is that 0.7 ppm fluoride prevents cavities. No health effects are associated . .nada, zip, zero.

This is a superficially plausible but misleading and fallacious argument.

Concept A: Proponents seem to talk about the concentration of fluoride in water as though water were the only source of fluoride. Total exposure has changed and must be considered and not evaded. Not everyone’s kidneys function the same and excrete fluoride. Estimates of mean exposure do not take into account kidney function, etc. Therefore, thoughtful scientists would consider blood serum fluoride concentrations a far better scientific measurement than fluoride concentrations in public water. Even fluoride in urine is problematic but better than public water fluoride concentrations. Any research not inclusive of fluoride serum concentrations is problematic and little more than gossip and speculation. Certainly talking only about water fluoride concentration is obfuscation at best.

But we don’t even know what fluoride concentration in the target organ is ideal. We are worse than the dark ages when discussion “optimal fluoride exposure.” Optimal for who, where, what when? Obviously the tooth. So how much fluoride do we want in the tooth? A most fundamental basic question.

Let me underscore that concept. According to the EPA, about a quarter of children are ingesting too much fluoride for several years of their lives.

But the problem of excess fluoride exposure as presented by the graph is much worse.

The graph only represents the 90th percentile of the population for fluoride consumption. Any reasonable person would protect everyone or have labels of caution to avoid excess exposure. In other words, the 10% of the public who consume the most fluoride are not even represented in the graph. The most at risk are completely ignored. Are you willing to callously disregard 10% of the population?

And the graph does not include 100% of infants up to 6 months. Most at risk are those on formula made with fluoridated water.

And to add insult to injury, this is based on the PROPOSED new RfD which is a third more fluoride. That’s right. NCR 2006 said standards were not protective, so EPA changes standards to be less protective rather than more protective.

In order for me not to consider fluoridation a crime against humanity, please explain why proponents of fluoridation have no concern for at least a quarter of the children growing up.

Billy Bud. You suggest that no one calculates out their salt or iodine intake. Not true. On most food packages the FDA requires the sodium content to be listed. And many of us are concerned about iodine intake because thyroid functions are low, especially with higher intakes of fluoride. Of course you use the term, “precise dose.” We are scientists and should be able to at least have a range of dose for each tooth.

My point is, no one knows optimal fluoride concentration for the tooth. That is the entire purpose of ingesting fluoride, to increase the fluoride content of the tooth. But if it doesn’t make any difference, i.e. caries and caries free teeth have similar concentrations, then an optimal fluoride concentration of dentin and enamel is dental hyperbole. And until we know what optimal is for the teeth, we don’t know what is optimal for serum nor do we know optimal for total exposure.

And we are talking police powers forcing everyone to ingest more fluoride and we dentists are clueless as to how much we want them to ingest. Our fixation on water fluoride concentration as though everyone fits in the mean intake and exposure of fluoride is beyond ridiculous.

You suggest fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries. That is simply a lie. If fluoridation prevented dental caries, we would not have dental caries in those communities. However, we do. At best you should have a modicum of honesty and use the term “mitigate” rather than “prevent.”

After all, most dentists would be out of business in fluoridated communities if fluoridation did what you suggest.

Fluoridation opponents talk about fluoride intake from all sources as if this some new concept, known only to them and completely overlooked by the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare that fully supports water fluoridation. The CDC and the IOM estimate total fluoride intake from all sources to be 50-75% from water and beverages. Do you dispute this?

The IOM established daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources to be 10 mg before adverse effects will occur, long or short term. With water fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, and 50-75% of the total intake being from water and beverages, before 10 mg intake could be achieved, water toxicity would be the problem, not fluoride.

With kids age 0-8 the daily upper limit is considerably less, but only due to the risk of mild to very mild dental fluorosis during those teeth developing years. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis requires no treatment, has been demonstrated by Kumar to be more decay resistant, and was not considered by the 2006 NRC to be an adverse effect. This is the only consequence of that “quarter of children ” whom the EPA reporting as ingesting “too much fluoride”.

Let me underscore this concept. The only consequence of these kids ingesting “too much fluoride” is the risk of their developing mild to very mild dental fluorosis. You do understand that the black dental decay prevented by fluoridation is far more aesthetically objectionable, and far more detrimental to health than the barely detectable white streaks of mild dental fluorosis, correct?

The same is true for infants. Given the fluoride content of most infant powdered formulas, the use of fluoridated water to reconstitute these powders may result in the development of mild dental fluorosis. If this is objectionable to the parents, in spite of the increased dental decay resistance, the CDC and the ADA suggest they either use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most of which utilize low-fluoride content water.

In regard to your “most fundamental basic question”, again I ask, are you willing to deny an entire population the proven benefit of water fluoridation because you want 100% guarantee of where the optimal level falls between 0.5 ppm and 0.8 ppm? If so, then you’d better look in the mirror if you want to determine who is manifesting a “crime against humanity”.

The 2006 NRC did not loosely state that “standards were not protective”. It specifically stated that the EPA primary MCL of 4.0 ppm should be lowered because it puts children at risk of severe dental fluorosis and is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. The Committee made no recommendation to lower the EPA secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, thus deeming that level to be adequately protective against adverse health effects. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level deemed adequately protective by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride.

Now, why don’t you explain why, given the non-existence of adverse effects of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, and the countless peer-reviewed observational studies demonstrating the effectiveness of this public initiative within those populations exposed to it, you are willing to doom millions of people to unnecessary pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection of untreated dental disease that could have been prevented by fluoridation.

Well said.
This debate has already caused considerable damage in a number of communities capitalising as it does on the fears of the uninformed. I have noticed in my supermarket a diligent search is required to find fluoridated toothpaste (I am dependant on rain water). I hear many manufacturers in the US have noticed a consumer resistance to fluoride and responded accordingly.
This is what pedantic busybodies with personality disorders are capable of.

Very good article. Makes a good point about conspiracy theories. A successful CT can never be discovered let alone proven. Therefore the absence of proof is evidence of a successful conspiracy. I think this argument was used at Salem. It’s called the fallacy of affirming the consequence. It features regularly in so-called “kangaroo courts” ie “trials” organised by people with no respect for truth or a level playing field. These people thrive on the Internet for the simple reason it is easy to be selective and even misreport with some degree of immunity. There’s a good chance you will tap into fears that close all but the strongest and determined minds.

“You suggest fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries. That is simply a lie. If fluoridation prevented dental caries, we would not have dental caries in those communities”

Not to displace Billy Budd’s right of reply, I will add my opinion.

You called Billy Budd a liar because he suggested 0.7mm prevents dental caries.
It does.

You have taken his suggestion and “pretended” it to mean ALL dental caries, in ALL people.

Not only is that stupid, it is ignores all of the useful information given and cited on this blog.

A Year 10/10thgrade child would not make this error.

Yet you, a person who purports to have both graduate and post graduate degrees as well as perhaps experience as a dentist have done just this. You haven’t really made an error have you? You created a straw man and called it a liar.

Christopher,
Significant name calling is taking place here instead of looking at the science. Using the correct terms would seem to be scientific and save some confusion.
Are you suggesting proponents of fluoridation are about the 10th grade level? I think not, but certainly proponents could be scientific in their marketing.

1: There will be some inevitable name calling and anger – it is an emotional issue. I am trying to discourage this but will only hold a comment back if it is very bad or it does not contain anything relevant to the issues being discussed. (Technically Bill Osmunson’s, your comment is like that). Also, I will hold comments back which are personal attacks.

2: Leave the moderation to me – continual bitching because you feel the “other side” is overstepping some line is not going to help.

3: There are people who are attempting to divert the discussion with personal vendettas and claims. I won’t let their comments through. But one of these, Paul Melters. Has provided a place where he is gathering comments from similarly mixed people to establish a case against me! If that sort of scandal attracts you have a look at his website http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/.

4: No, please don’t then come back and attempt to discuss or promote Melters’s website and charges here – that would be a diversion. You could attempt to to discuss it on his web pages (good luck with that – he doesn’t provide for any discussion – a bit ironic).

5: The best way of preventing sabotage of the discussion is simply to continue the discussion of the science and/or ethics and other points raised in the articles. Ignore the provocations.

Dear Steve,
Thank you for spending the time to review my comments. I think if we had the time to sit down and make sure our terms and concepts were fully understood, we would be at least in the same book if not on the same page. Your patience is appreciated.

To your first paragraph, I appreciate your acknowledging in essence that total exposure is a fact which needs to be kept in mind. If a country or community uses significant fluoridated toothpaste, fluoride pesticides, fluoride containing coal or other significant source of fluoride and another does not, then comparing only about half the total fluoride exposure could significantly affect a study or certainly an individual within the study. Until the age of 12 my daughter unconsciously swallowed fluoride toothpaste before she spit.

Before I go through some of your items, may I raise some concerns I have with fluoridation research. Please remember, my public health profession uses police powers to fluoridate based on my dental professions absolute confidence the benefits far outweigh the risk and the research is overwhelmingly supportive of fluoridation.

However, when I read the literature, these are some of the areas which the research fails to address:
• A. Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors
• B. Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
• C. Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
• D. Inadequate size
• E. Difficulty in diagnosing decay
• F. Delay in tooth eruption not controlled
• G. Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year around vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.
• H. Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
• I. Oral hygiene not determined
• J. Not evaluating Life time benefit
• K. Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
• L. Dental treatment expenses not considered
• M. Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
• N. Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.
• O. Genetics not considered

Each of the above in and of itself is grounds for concern to remove freedom of choice from patients and use a substance which has never been approved by the FDA CDER, or to my knowledge any drug regulatory agency world wide for ingestion for the prevention or mitigation of dental caries.

I understand the lack of research is not proof of harm, nor safety. However, using police powers which the courts agree can be used for highly contagious diseases, when the research is so flawed, gives me more than a little concern. Proponents need more evidence than “tradition” and “trust me” evidence.

You use IOM data for intake safety. However, when I last reviewed their evidence, it was incomplete and historical. Certainly the 2010 EPA data and NRC 2006 is more current.

You suggest those ingesting more than RfD to only be at risk of dental fluorosis. Are you suggesting there is no upper limit? And what about infants receiving about 250 times the dosage of fluoride as mother’s milk? Would you consider mother’s milk flawed?

And the theory that fluoride is beneficial for the teeth has many holes, such as complete cusp fracture with harder teeth. I know. The lack of research is not proof of harm. But we have been fluoridating for over 60 years and isn’t it about time we are honest and did research on tooth fractures. Limeback et al showed increased fracture with increased fluoride in teeth and the minimal research indicates about triple the prevalence of complete cusp fracture in fluoridated communities.

I would suggest the lack of good published research on improved dental health in fluoridated communities for the entire population as measured by a reduction in dental expenses or dental procedures is alarming. Huge claims are made for dental caries reduction and costs for treatment should also be less. The suggestion that fluoridation has a proven benefit is rejected. Too many studies fail to show a significant reduction in dental caries and fail to consider numerous confounding concerns. The benefits of fluoridation are highly over rated.

You probably remember the FDA CDER in 1975 rejected NDA’s for ingested fluoride based on the fact that the evidence of efficacy for ingested fluoride was lacking. You can bet your socks that proponents of fluoride supplements and fluoridation would get FDA CDER approval if the evidence actually showed efficacy.

You ask a question of me which is valid. Why would I put most of the world at risk, in your words, “doom” them to a life of pain and suffering because I’m opposed to fluoridation. Here are some very short points.

1. Brains are more important than teeth. I can fix teeth. Assuming fluoride reduces caries and does not increase fractures. But lacking studies we can only speculate with poor research.

2. Most developed countries have not fluoridated and their caries rates are similar to those countries predominantly fluoridating.

3. Dental caries had dropped in half prior to fluoridation and the trend in the USA continued with no significant change regardless of fluoridation.

4. The NRC 2006 called for additional research which has mostly not been done. Confidence level in fluoridation is poor at best.

5. Dental expenses for the population in fluoridated communities is not lower unless estimates based on assumptions are done or small groups of people are selected during short periods of their lives.

6. Comparing counties, or states, or countries does not find a benefit between the fluoridated and none fluoridated. (Mixed results, noting consistent.)

7. Mother’s milk is the normative model against which all other infant nutrition should be compared.

So have a happy Thanksgiving, being thankful for the freedom of choice we have in most of Oregon, Europe and the world to drink water which has not been intentionally medicated.

The opposite is true that with fluoridated water you can become edentulous. As stated in these articles: Kentucky would have been a very good place to set up camp and watch for the long-awaited dental miracle to happen, because Kentucky was 100% “optimally fluoridated” in 1992, and remained over 96% “optimally fluoridated” in 2000, in spite of eight more years of patient but meaningless miracle-waiting.

Despite this grand level of fluoridation, in a 2002 article in the Cincinnati Enquirer it was noted that, “In Kentucky, nearly half of the commonwealth’s 2- to 4-year-olds have cavities.” This is approximately twice the national average.

In 2003 the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) gave Kentucky a “Fifty Year Award,” which is an award given to states in recognition of their community water fluoridation. In 2002, however, in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC named Kentucky as the top state in the U.S. in which residents had lost all of their teeth. According to the CDC report, 42% of Kentucky’s adults are completely edentulous.

Given the steady flow of fluoride coursing through Kentucky and its residents and given the over half-century-old promise of dental benefits, one might have realistically expected a very different dental score for this state that has complied so thoroughly with the demands and pressures to become “optimally fluoridated.”

The little-known truth, however, is that this edentulous outcome and problematic score is exactly what might be expected from a highly fluoridated population.

Fluoride is known to precipitate and exacerbate periodontal disease, because it stimulates the body’s production of prostaglandins.

Bill, obviously we will just have to agree to disagree. Your points are appreciated, but not new. Basically it boils down to the fact that you consider fluoride at the optimal level to be medication, and interference with freedom of choice. I don’t and neither do the courts each time that has been brought in by fluoridation opponents. It is simply a mineral identical to that which already exists in water which humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time.

You deem more studies to be necessary, including RCTs. I certainly don’t disagree with that, as scientific study should never cease. Our difference is that you believe fluoridation should cease until these studies are done. I don’t. There is sufficient evidence of benefit to continue, with insufficient evidence to warrant cessation while further study is done. Ceasing until all expressed concerns are satisfied means permanent cessation, because all concerns will never be satisfied regardless the amount, or quality of testing that is done. As I know you know, RCTs in regard to fluoridation are all but impossible. Limeback has an idea for one in remote Alaskan villages in which halo and other effects would be non-existent and fluoride intake could be accurately measured. I’m all all for that, and would be glad to be involved in such a study. Perform RCTs for effectiveness, IQ effects, and any other areas of concern. But, in the meantime, there is not sufficient reason for cessation of an initiative that simply adds a miniscule few more parts per million of fluoride ions to those systems which have an existing level below 0.7 ppm.

“Freedom of choice” that’s what it’s really about isn’t it. Freedom of choice is good but absolute freedom of choice is chaos and what choice is there when scare tactics are used by cranks and children are denied the benefits from infancy and apathy is rampant and even encouraged among certain demographics.
Read this.http://www.rph.org.nz/content/08376712-fc6f-4ad2-ba10-4b077c690667.cmr

These are studies based on populations quite similar in locality and demographic profiles. The conclusions are quite clear. The city of Hamilton (NZ) is about to reverse a misguided decision to abandon fluoridation. The original decision was the result of surreptitious lobbying by anti cranks who even threatened legal action against individual councillors aided and assisted by a widespread ignorance of science among many and apathy by the wider public. It looks like closer attention by the wider public has galvanised a reaction. Plenty of New Zealanders have first hand experience of an older generations toothless grins and the efficacy of public health measures like fluoridation. The claim of widespread abandoning of fluoride around the planet is a myth. More than that it is an outright lie. Many European communities have relatively homogenous well educated societies. In spite of that many of them deliver fluoride in one form or another. Many of us are used to hearing downright lies dressed up in pseudoscientific pedantry. I have all of my own teeth (68yrs) with some ancient fillings but my older sisters all have dentures. My children and grandchildren (fluoride generations) have barely a filling between them.

If you doubt my claims about Mary Sparrowdancer, cosmic mystic extraordinaire, then read this. You will notice she claims the Feds are “poisoning” 70% of the US population!
Doesn’t sound like widespread abandonment (a frequent lie) to me.

Looks like legal manoeuvring has resulted in the Hamilton City Council, NZ, deferring a decision to reintroduce fluoridation. There will be a lot of angry citizens as the referendum clearly supported fluoridation. The deferral is probably to await the High court ruling early next year on the South Taranaki situation.

Ken.
I’m not surprised. They threatened legal action and I’m pretty sure they obtained privileged access to address councillors in Dunedin. I believe mention was made of litigation. Councillors will kick for touch. These bullies have to be stood up to.

You said;
“Significant name calling is taking place here instead of looking at the science”
Ironic when you incorrectly called Billy Budd a liar.

“Using the correct terms would seem to be scientific and save some confusion”
Accuracy is important, absolutely.
So, again… you stated that Billy Budd suggested;
“fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents dental caries”
You have ADDED one word by suggesting that he said “fluoridation at 0.7 ppm prevents ALL dental caries”
Do you dispute this?
Taking phrases is out of context and ADDING your own meaning is neither scientific nor accurate. Given your accusation of lying, it is also dishonest.
“Are you suggesting proponents of fluoridation are about the 10th grade level?”
No. You either haven’t read my comment or you are AGAIN adding your own meaning here.

“I think not, but certainly proponents could be scientific in their marketing.”
I think that you need to scrutinize your motives and perhaps question why you are adding/changing others comments.
I find your discussion with Steve Slott quite civil and polite – also well considered, which is why I am surprised at your approach towards this issue.

Legal threats by antifluoridationists are common and meritless. Just as with Attorney Deal’s lame attempt at intimidation in one of these comment sections, their total lack of knowledge of of fluoridation substances, NSF standards and legalities of water additives makes for a lot of bluster about lawsuits that are nothing but a bunch of illiterate hot air. Unfortunately, some in leadership are unduly intimidated by this nonsense and succumb to these blatant intimidation tactics. Nothing to be done except try to keep educating leaders with the facts of water fluoridation such that they can eventually discern fact from fiction.

We have a situation in New Zealand where central government and health authorities support fluoridation. Our Health Minister has publicly warned about minority activists decending on a city, picking off councils, and spreading misinformation. The other day our Parlimanetary health committee recommnded that resposnsibility be taken away from councils and managed centrally or by local health boards.

However, the government currently argues that they will not take decisions away from the community. This means that local councils who have been softened up and can be scared by costs of legal action can be manipualted this way – despite a clear referendum reuslt.

It seems to me that if the government wants to keep the decision at the local level it should pass legilation to indemnify local councils. One can’t run a social health poilicy if it can be so easily subverted by threats of legal action so that councils end up ignoring the decisions of the voters.

While the particular High Court decsion this particular council deferrment relies on may be available early next year these activists to keep the issue running for years by using appeals.

And it this tactic proves successful perhaps they could try similar action of vaccinations – another one of their hobby horses (together with chemtrails).

Here is an example of the unconscionable action taken by antifluoridationist attorneys and the extent to which they will go to advance their ideology. The below letter was sent to the National Kidney Foundation to intimidate that foundation into removing its name from the official list of fluoridation supporters. As can be seen, the attorney threatens the then current and past Board members as well as the employees of this non-profit charitable organization. Rather than waste its resources on legal fees in a protracted legal battle, and put its Directors and employees at risk for extensive legal fees they would have probably have had to bear personally, regardless the outcome, the NKF very understandably succumbed to this threatening action and removed its name from the official list of supporters.

In a letter dated September 18, 2007, Attorney Robert Reeves writes to John Davis, and Charles B. Fruit, CEO and Chairman, respectively, of the National Kidney Foundation:

“Dear Sirs:

This letter is to make you aware of a window of opportunity for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) to act on behalf of its constituents in accordance with the organization’s stated mission. Your actions or inaction in response to this letter have the potential to help or harm many patients with kidney disease and responsible individuals, which might include past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are named as defendants in anticipated legal actions now in development.

I have been asked if I would consider representing kidney patients in actions against your organization as a result of NKF’s misrepresentations concerning fluoride. I have not yet made a decision as to whether I would personally handle kidney cases or refer them to other attorneys. Frankly, I would hope NKF acts forthrightly and responsibly simply out of concern for its constituents’ health. But if you require additional perspective, experience has demonstrated that potentially responsible parties that take action quickly to remedy cases of negligent misrepresentation and who thereby demonstrate good faith can substantially reduce their financial and legal exposure. Even if it is ultimately determined that neither NKF or any past and present Officers, Board Members and/or employees are liable criminally or for any tort such as negligent misrepresentation this could still be a major public relations disaster for NKF which is best handled now rather than later.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important and urgent matter.”

They’ll have a hard time establishing it is mass medication. It isn’t and has been consistently ruled so in many courts. Properly mixed in an aqueous solution it is a negatively charged ion which is why it is incorporated in teeth enamel and bone. Medications are complex compounds administered to particular patients to address particular pathologies. Fluoridation is simply a thoroughly researched optimisation of a naturally occurring element which has beneficial outcomes without discrimination. There are many decisions that have to be made on behalf of communities, that’s why we have elected decision making bodies in the first place. There are many conclusions regarding welfare and least harm that are made by educated people under approriate guidelines and implemented by suitably authorised bodies. This usually represents our best considered judgements and must have precedence over misguided uninformed opinion if the general welfare is at stake.

Stuart you said: Mary Sparowdancer is a crank (like you). Gum disease (forget the pseudoscientific posturing) is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present. You are the crank not me, secondly In 1936 Dean H.T. D.D.S- wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “From observations that I made in areas of relatively high fluoride concentration (more than 4 parts per million of fluorine) there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is an apparent tendency toward a higher incidence of gingivitis (periodontal disease).

This change in chemical structure can cause problems in later dental work as was reported in 1940 by two dentists ‘The Smiths’ from Arizona:

At that time St David in Arizona had a fluoride content in drinking water of 1.6 to 4 ppm. They observed that:

“Steps taken to repair the cavities in many cases were unsuccessful, the tooth breaking away when attempts were made to anchor the fillings, so that extraction was the only course. That decay was widespread and repair highly unsuccessful among young adults was shown by an incidence of more than 50 percent of false teeth in the age group 24 to 26 years. Very rarely, adults were found whose teeth, though mottled, were free from caries.”

Given the fact that now in the US fluoridation can occur up to 4 ppm, this result is a triumph of modern dentistry. Imagine at 24 to 26 years of age more than 50% of young adults without any decay due to fluoridation (and without teeth). Your anecdotal evidence that you have your teeth is meaningless. I know tons of people in non fluoridated areas with all their teeth with no cavities whatsoever

Trevor, referencing in this way occurs because you are copy and pasting. However, that is disrespectful to others here. Could you please provide proper reference details (and preferably links) in future.

You know Ken I don’t know why you don’t ask for references from the other commenters here, why don’t you ask Stuart for his references on Gum disease being caused only by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present. is caused by not cleaning teeth at all irrespective of whether fluoride is present.

You say you are trying to encourage everyone to provide details but it seems to me that you only ask me for references all the time when I provide you with all the stuff I have. You don’t seem to bother the people who are pro fluoride for their references this is what I have a problem with Ken.

you said,…” secondly In 1936 Dean H.T. D.D.S- wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association”

You are relying on something written pre WW2?

Seriously? Are you an idiot?

But to avoid any accusations of ad hominem attacks…this is a serious question, not a claim.
It appears that you accept the opinions expressed by ( mainstream) Public health organisations.
What about Public health authorities in the 21st century?

Christopher, I was making a point to Stuart that fluoride is known to precipitate and exacerbate periodontal disease, because it stimulates the body’s production of prostaglandins. I also stated Similar observations of the link between fluoride and periodontal disease have been made many times since by Dean & Arnold, 1943[9]; Day, 1940[10]; Spira L. 1953[11]; Ramseyer et al, 1957[12]; Grimbergen et al, 1974[13]; Poulsen & Moller,1974[14]; Waldbott et al, 1978[15]; Olsson, 1979[16]; Reddy et al, 1985[17]; Wei et al, 1986[18] and Yiamouyiannis, 1993[19]. So no I am not an idiot. Just because a study is old does not make it wrong.

I agree Ken that people have to be able to check claims being made about things. I am not afraid to provide details about what I say. I feel I proved my point that fluoride exacerbates periodontal disease and gingivitis and that without fluoridated water we would still have our teeth . I gave the quote “With 1.6 to 4ppm fluoride in the water, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage.” JADA 1944 and provided more details about this study. I also gave information from the book where it is found. I feel people here can check the sources and books I referenced as well. I am not copy and pasting without checking things. I don’t appreciate also people saying rude things to me such as Stuart calling me a crank and Christopher asking if I am an idiot this does not contribute to this discussion whatsoever.

Trevor, if you took the trouble to read Independant assessments of these claims you would find they are shot full of question begging issues. I suggest you look up “confirmation bias” on Google Scholar or SEP. Many casual commentators particularly in the US have never been outside their home county. Just talk to your parents, grandparents and great grandparents and see what they say. Oh! And stop watching that crap on Fox.

Furthermore Trevor, on most issues you will find renegades preaching to captive audiences who have all sorts of suspect motivations. You obviously source literature that confirms your convictions. That’s called “confirmation bias”.

Trevor this just shows you are completely ignorant on oral health. Brushing your teeth stimulates the blood vessels in your gums without which your gums will shrink producing gaps between gums and teeth in which bacteria and corrosive acids work on the enamel. If you are deficient in fluoride exposure this process of general deterioration will accelerate. For God’s sake man we are tought this in school dental clinics on NZ (while we had them anyway). Of course in some countries (and counties) that smacks of socialism and there I suspect lies the problem.

I gave you a direct link to a NZ report and that has references to original research and meta analysis. That is a published survey of already published peer reviewed papers ie it has been scrutinised independently (and secretly) by acknowledged experts in the field.
A common tactic by suspect naysayers is to quote sources that are difficult if not impossible to verify.
Just for fun why don’t you start reading publications that endorse the mainstream consensus, publications that are well respected by the scientific community. Seeking out idiosyncratic claims says something about you Trevor. It suggests you are attracted to the improbable. I don’t say this lightly and I’m not recklessly being ad hominen. while you are at it Google the psychology of the irrational. These psychological tendencies are not isolated to single causes or issues. It’s a personality issue. You will find a cluster if irrational and improbable believes. Typically the very same people are into Chem trails, alien abductions, UFOs, The New World Order, The Ulluminati and black helicopters. I’m not suggesting you are I am just saying if you google some if the names you are probably familiar with you will undoubtedly find that is the case. Just Google Mary Sparrowdancer and read a number of her preposterous claims. She is not an isolated case by any means.

Trevor – you talk of prostaglandins as if they were some sort of fearful invasive agent. They are (generally) vasodilators and possibly aid blood circulation in the gums (which would be good) though don’t quote me as I am neither a pharmacologist or a physiologist, but without them you would not be capable of penile erections. Be grateful man!

Trevor – the sources you quote (as far as I have ascertained) are committed, not to the truth but to getting rid of fluoride no matter how. Google John Yiamouyiannis for example and in rationalwiki and other posts you will find a man who denied the link between HIV and Aids. That makes him at least a crank if not certifiable. This was the man who spurned conventional treatment for his colorectal cancer and went off instead to Mexico and unscrupulous cranks who helped him secumb to his disease with Laetrile and vitamins. Hardly makes him worthy of the sanctification he enjoys in some circles.

I don’t seek to be deliberately hurtful but in defence of the many thousands of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who would be condemned to a lifetime of pain, expense and some ugliness not to mention systemic illhealth without public health interventions such as fluoridation I will say the following. In a different discussion forum (the imagined bizarre effects of wind farms) I stated the following.
“I check the background of proponents of the improbable and frequently find a pattern. These are frequently people with “issues” as they say in the trade. “Issues” that often go back to youth or childhood that have never been expressed and looked at (with qualified help). At some deep level pain or unhappiness is experienced and the poor sod seeks an acceptable explanation.” outside themselves of course. There are explanations of course and they are very often of a sexual nature which manifests itself in horror at “contamination”, contamination being of course an acceptable proxy for violation to the damaged person.

You can read more about it here:… (Trevor sadly links to a no-name blog that he found on the internet.)

No Trevor. Bad Trevor.
You’re not helping yourself when you do that.
Just because you got sucked in by a blog that tells you something that you want to hear doesn’t mean the rest of us have to go play “follow the leader”.

No.
Those are not your references. You just gullibly cut-and-pasted them from the blog you found. You have not actually read anything independently by yourself.

I agree Ken that people have to be able to check claims being made about things.

Practice what you preach.
So far what you have done is deeply unimpressive.
You haven’t checked anything at all.
It’s all “Oh yeah, a blog. I’ll go off and cut-and-paste it. That will show ’em. It’s got those funny citation thingies at the bottom too. Yeah. Betta cut-and-paste that too. Make look more sciency.”

I am not afraid to provide details about what I say. I feel I proved my point that fluoride exacerbates perio….

You couldn’t provide details if your life depended on it.
You’ve done bugger all in checking the source of the claims that you pinched.

Google John Yiamouyiannis for example and in rationalwiki and other posts you will find a man who denied the link between HIV and Aids. That makes him at least a crank if not certifiable.

Yep.
See, Trevor? Google is not your friend. I’d bet dollars to donuts that it never occured to you to actually google any of those authors. There was never a moment of caution from you that maybe you should vet your sources…. and straight off the bat, Stuart nails it by exposing a HIV denier.
This is a Kook that you cut-and-pasted.
You.
Nobody held a gun to your head.
You stepped in it all by yourself.

I never do that. When I quote someone, I always cheerfully give the link. I don’t ever pretend to have read a paper. Nor do I just cut-and-paste some isolated quote from some paper that was culled by some other person from some no-name blog. Never. My standards of scholarship are way higher than that.

So no I am not an idiot. Just because a study is old does not make it wrong.

We’re not talking about the bible, you idiot.
We’re talking about science. Scientific research.
It’s not supposed to be a nostalgic trip down memory lane looking for ancient wisdom in musty tomes.
Old stuff gets routinely chucked in science. Why would you limit yourself to a study from before World War 2? That’s just more than a little bit precious.
The world of science has moved on since then. There’s lots of cool (..gasp!….) MODERN stuff out there. The year is 2013.
Embrace it.

You said;
“I don’t appreciate also people saying rude things to me such as Stuart calling me a crank and Christopher asking if I am an idiot this does not contribute to this discussion whatsoever”
id•i•ot

1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

For the sake of accuracy I was asking whether you thought you fell into the first category rather than the second.
You have been foolish and stupid as explained in detail by Ken, Cedric and Stuart. I won’t dwell on this.
However it was silly of me to ask whether you believed you were an idiot; most people would answer in the negative regardless of overwhelming supporting empirical evidence.
I didn’t intend on being rude however, and if you have taken offense, I apologise.
I wasn’t making a comment about you as a person – I haven’t any idea on how much of an idiot (or not) you are in real life. I based my question simply on what you had written (or copy/pasted) as I found it difficult that any sane, normal person could actually spend time and effort to stitch together such utter nonsense.

Poor old Trev!
I know we have been giving you a hard time. Didnt mean to ruin your day. Don’t know how old you are but anyone can change their approach to things. Now I’m sounding patronising. But take this on board. Most of us don’t process data rationally all the time. Most of us have had to learn a lot regarding faith versus reason and the various kinds of reason(ing). It’s blimin hard work. Comments directed at you might seem harsh but you need to learn that if you feel tempted to preach to people who have dedicated the bulk of their adult lives in the pursuit of scientific knowledge (justified true belief) with facile arguments, you are going to get hammered. Particularly from australasians who are (in)famous in academic circles for being “mad dog” realists. We also indulge ourselves in a quaint practice called cricket which lionizes sledging, the art of putting people off their game by questioning their paternity among other things.
Cricket teaches us many things one of which is the insight that the world is divided into seasons, series, matches, innings, overs and balls. Any of these can be a triumph. Any can be catastrophic. The point being everyone can turn to a fresh page in life and try a new approach. I suggest you find a couple of good introductory books on scientific method and reasoning. Michael Shermer springs to mind. You’ll find him in a local bookshop or library.
I recall if I’m not mistaken you were bewildered by the fact that you have lost a good number of your teeth despite living in a fluoridated community. Can I ask are you or we’re you a consumer of nicotine or cannabis.
If so you need to reflect on the straight forward fact that unlike prostaglandins (vasodilators), nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. This WILL result in gum disease and teeth loss. Here is the really bad news. 54% of leg amputations in later life are attributed to lifelong smoking. Likewise cardiovascular disease and of course lung cancer. There’s a big price to pay in persistently backing the wrong horse.
As I said I don’t know your age but I gave up smoking aged 31-32 and within three or four months was running 8 miles a day (in my lunch hour), enjoying tramping (hiking) and mountaineering with renewed vigour and contemplating further university study. This had hugely beneficial effects on myself and my family. I developed a healthy respect for myself and realised there is always a path out of the slough of despond and onto a more rewarding upland.

It was many posts back, but I did not hear you use the word “mitigate.” As scientists, when something is prevented, it does not happen. If we prevent pregnancy, polio, or some other disease, it does not happen. If we mitigate the disease, then it is reduced in severity. Fluoride can both decrease and increase dental caries. At best it might mitigate, but it does not prevent dental caries.

My point is the correct term should be used if we are going to be scientists.

Ken,
You have come down hard on those finding serious flaws with fluoridation. However, when name calling and patronizing and attacking the messenger instead of the message is done by proponents, you join in. If you are going to be fair, then be fair on both sides.

The FD&C Act charges the FDA CDER with evaluating the scientific evidence on whether a substance is a drug or food, mineral, nutrient, etc. and NOT the courts. The FDA CDER has jurisdiction. And the FDA CDER has rejected the ingestion of fluoride because the research does not show it is effective. The FDA CDER has policies, pharmacists, epidemiologists, toxicologists, etc who read the literature and make difficult judgment decisions. The FDA CDER has agreed fluoride is a drug when used with the intent to prevent or mitigate disease.

Evading the authorized regulatory agencies is not proof of efficacy or safety.

Bill Osmunson – we both have “irons in the fire” in this discussion – my position is clear.

As the blog owner I am moderating the current discussion (and this has been so successful I intend to continue moderating other discussions here). I know those here who are stongly motivated in the opposite direct to me will inevitably complain about that moderation. And I am sure I will get similar complaints from local facebook pages (when they clam down and move on from calling me mad, a moron, demented, etc.)

I think I have been clear in my approach:

1: My main concnern is that the discussion not be sabotaged or derailed in the way internet discussions very often are. Consequently I am holding back in moderation comments clearly aimed at personal attacks, undermining the discussion or having no value to the discussion.

2: Let’s be clear – I am not holding back any because I disagree with their claims or interpretation of the science. Far from it – we want those sort of comments to contibute to the discussion.

3: I recognise people get emotional and express themselves forcefully at times. While from time to time I may comment to discourage this, I do not hold back such comments if they have something contributing to the discussion. Yes, I may even express my own frustration at times (and in other places I have sometimes apologised and withdrawn as a result – I am human). This is very minor compared with some of the provocations I have recieved on this issue – in NZ this intimidation has caused many professionals to keep out of the discussion. Whenever scientists or dentists do come out publicly supporting fluoridation the anti-fluoridation facebook pages and letters to the editor direct their (often childish) anger at the person. They play the ball rather than the man. I am trying to prevent that happening here – and so far I think this has been successful.

4: I think the best tactic for commenters when name-calling occurs is not to allow themselves to be diverted. To pursue the scientific or ethical point they intend to make. It dees no good to retaliate in the same vein.

Finally, bitching about my lack of fairness in moderation is, in itself, a diversion from the real discussion.

Bill, could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride (natural or added) in drinking water at the recommended concentrations. I realise such regulations can cover dental preparations etc., but our interest is specifically normal drinking water.

Thank you Richard. You are a reasonable person. Indeed, I wanted to make a point. I too have used the term “prevention” with regards to fluoride much more than “mitigation” so I am just as guilty of spreading the prevention lie as anyone else. As scientists we need to be precise with our terms and the precision is a life long struggle for most of us.

Now the question remains, does fluoride mitigate dental caries. I think it does. The debate is to what extent. And of more serious and weighty concern is whether the ingestion of fluoride has a net benefit to the teeth and human health.

Just like tobacco in the 1970’s when I was in my Master’s of Public Health and DDS education, seemed to have significant scientific strength raising concerns of harm. Yet tobacco smoking was done in my hospital, airplane, restaurant, and promoted by the dentist who’s practice I took over. And some scientists still feel the research of tobacco’s harm is not convincing. American Cancer Society is just now working on a new large study to determine whether tobacco causes cancer. Perhaps you would agree we need to spend millions more on tobacco research, however, In my judgment we have enough science to be reasonably certain tobacco is not healthy.

The same judgment skills need to be used for the ingestion of fluoride. It is unwise for us to look at one study or studies supporting only one side of the controversy. Using similar principles of critical evaluation for all research is essential. We are premature to accept poor, incomplete, and flawed studies as “proof” of efficacy or “proof” of safety or “proof” of harm.

So many unanswered fundamental questions remain unanswered about fluoridation. The experts to make the judgment are the FDA CDER and it is not their job to make the decision unless an application is made to them with the evidence presented. So far they have said “Not effective.”

For example, what cause the 50% decline in dental caries prior to fluoride use? No one knows. Did the subsequent decline result from fluoridation or the unknown? No one knows. Without quality studies controlling for confounding factors or even total exposure, makes studies highly suspect.

To give everyone without their consent even more fluoride when about 2 out of 5 show signs of excess ingestion (dental fluorosis) makes no sense.

And when most developed countries and dental associations have rejected fluoridation, the USA should pause and ask, “what do they know we don’t?” Seems to me the height of arrogance to say that everything just because we are doing it is both safe and effective and better than the rest of the world.

Simply too many serious questions and good studies finding little or no benefit. And too many serious limitations and lack of controls in those studies.

We need at least one prospective randomized controlled trial. Until that time, caution should be used.

Ken, To your first comment, I applaud you for at least trying to have an open discussion. Frequently proponents of fluoridation fail to show up to forums and debates. What you are doing her is really sticking your neck out and you are brave. Bravo.

When science is weak, controversy abounds. You are opening one of dentistry’s four most controversial issues.

Bill is there a link to the 50% decline in dental caries independently of flouridation?
I can think of several candidates for causation.
1. Education.
2. Diet change including in better educated communities an acknowledgement of the effects of free sugar.
3. Reduction in smoking.
4. Promotion of healthy lifestyles and the “glamorisation” of beautiful teeth by Hollywood et al.
5. The use of fluoride tablets in some communities prior to fluoridated water supplies.

Ken, to your second question, “Bill, could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride. . . ”

Ken, you are now asking about the foundation of fluoridation regulatory oversight. I have many documents and will try to be very brief but this is complex, so don’t skim and skip. Please read carefully. Each item is critical.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act delegates the FDA CDER to regulate drugs (See also California Code 11014 and all states mirror FD&C Act) laws:

“21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”

Fluoride is listed in the USP.

And again: “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means . . . (B) articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease in man or other animals;”

Ken and Richard, stick with me. This is fundamental.

Fluoride is added to water with the intent to prevent (mitigate) dental disease in man. The final manufacturer of the drug has the legal responsibility to gain FDA CDER approval. Of course you will have lots of “but, Bill, what about. . . . ” and you are correct. However, I can’t answer all the concerns in the same sentence, so you have to look at the concerns one at a time. For example, if fluoride is not regulated as a drug, then it is regulated as a poison, pesticide, etc. Fluoride is not regulated as a food.

Intent of use determines jurisdiction. If intent of fluoride is to kill pests, then pesticide laws and approval are required. If the intent of fluoride is to treat water, then EPA laws and approval would be required. However, there is no dispute that the intent of adding fluoride to water is for the prevention of dental caries and the FDA CDER has jurisdiction over substances used with the intent to prevent disease. A clear and confident understanding that fluoride for ingestion with the intent to prevent disease is a drug is essential. Regulation is specific. EPA treats water. FDA treats people. Department of Agriculture treats plants.

Fluoride is considered lethal at 5 mg/Kg body weight, well within the 50 mg/Kg or less definition of a highly toxic substance of all state and Federal law poison (highly toxic substance) laws. In other words, fluoride is a highly toxic poison. However, all states and Federal law have exceptions for highly toxic laws such as, ” ‘hazardous substances’ shall not apply to . . . Foods, drugs, or cosmetics subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. . . .”

Ken, we need to dig deeper. Stay with me.

Regulation of fluoride has two options.
a. Either regulation under highly toxic hazardous substance laws,
b. Or under drug laws.
Based on intent to prevent disease, fluoridation is an unapproved legend (prescription) drug regulated under drug laws. However, if fluoridation is not a drug, then it is a hazardous substance. Either as pesticide or drug, misbranding laws apply.
The first step before the addition of fluoride to public water is for the public water provider manufacturer to receive written verification from the FDA CDER that the FDA CDER does or does not have jurisdiction over the addition, formulation, labeling, branding, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, and administering of fluoride to public water when the intent is to prevent dental caries in man. Simply ask the FDA CDER for written confirmation a NDA is not required. The public is placed at risk and not protected by evading designated authorized regulatory agencies.

Ballot measure, state and Federal laws apply to fluoridation.

Just as voters may with ballot measure vote for construction and payment of a new pipe line, water treatment plant or building, the voters expect the water districts to abide by all general and applicable laws and building codes which may not be detailed and listed in a ballot measure. For example, a ballot measure does not exempt other general laws. The voters have not authorized unapproved pipes, pumps, fittings, buildings, chemicals or drugs. And the voters expect to be informed should information and science discover flaws with the voter’s ballot measure. The fluoridated water label must clearly state dosage, risks, and cautions and specific wording approved by the FDA CDER. Government policy is notoriously slow to change when scientific evidence finds policy is flawed, especially when chemicals are misbranded and placed as a ballot measure.
The FDA CDER has appropriate policies and the scientific experts such as pharmacologists, toxicologist, and epidemiologists to make complex scientific judgments when evaluating scientific studies. It is not the courts, water boards, city’s or county’s roll to weigh the scientific evidence, but rather to ensure the correct government agency authorization and regulation is obtained. Citing a long list of health organizations supporting a practice does not negate the need for authorized regulatory oversight.

Authorized agencies in all countries will require a reasonable label for substances, especially for highly toxic chemicals regardless of dilution and for drugs. The label is required to be approved and applied by the final manufacturer of the substance.
The court in Coshow v. Escondid (2005) correctly ruled that the FDA does not regulate drinking water standards. However, the court should not be construed to suggest that the FDA does not regulate drugs simply because they have been diluted with public water. Would the court claim other drugs are not drugs such as penicillin or morphine if they are diluted in public water? No. The court also correctly held that the city fluoridated under police powers. Public Health actions with police powers, such as quarantine or mass medication, are restricted to highly contagious diseases. Dental caries are not highly contagious and if fluoride prevented dental caries, dentists would mostly be out of business.

Permissible existing maximum concentration of contaminants in water are regulated by the EPA. Some of these contaminants such as arsenic and fluoride are highly toxic and must be reduced if feasible (or the water not used as potable water). Additives are regulated by the EPA to treat and disinfect water. Contaminants are not intentionally added to water and are to be kept to a minimum. Maximum contaminant levels are not “authorized” concentrations of contaminants which a water district should attempt to achieve.

The formulating, manufacturing, and intentional addition of toxic substances such as arsenic or fluoride to water is regulated by poison laws if the intent is to poison people, or pesticide laws if used as a pesticide, or drug laws if the intent is to treat people.

The clear language of the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the EPA from regulating substances intended to treat people, such as fluoride.

“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)

In 2009, HHS requested public comment on reducing the concentration of fluoridation to 0.7 ppm. Although HHS has several times promised to make a determination, the lowering of the concentration to 0.7 ppm will still not be protective and HHS has politically deferred action.

Ken, there is so much more, but that is just a sample of the problem.

Either fluoride is regulated under drug laws or poison laws. Which do you prefer?

Stuart, I have often thought that one reason for the improvement in oral health over time – as measure by dmft – could be changes in dental practice. I have often heard the story how in our youth dental nurses would insert fillings which later were considered unnecessary.

Richard,
You have asked about the four most controversial issues in dentistry and I would love to, but Ken has asked us to focus on the subject at hand. I think we need to respect Ken’s request. You can contact me privately at bill@teachingsmiles.com

Richard, you asked about iodine. Good question and I’m not an expert on iodine.

I do know that fluoride decreases thyroid function contributing to goiter and increased iodine reduces goiter. So the more fluoride ingested, the more iodine is required. Reduce fluoride exposure and iodine intake needs to decrease.

Second, iodine is not classified as highly toxic (less than 50 mg/kg causing death) and does not need to be regulated as a poison, pesticide or drug.

Third, iodine has been show to be used physiologically as a component of thyroid hormones. Therefore, thyroid is an essential mineral/nutrient and fluoride is not.

Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate fluoride ingestion, like scurvy is the result of inadequate Vit. C.

The FDA and the EPA are federal regulatory agencies. They are not bound by opinions, they are bound by federal statutes. Regardless of your personal opinion that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a drug or medication and therefore under the authority of the FDA, federal statutes deem different. The courts have upheld this each and every time that fluoride opponents have attempted it.

From the ADA “Fluoridation Facts”:

“On June 22, 1979, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clarify their roles and responsibilities in water quality assurance. The stated purpose of the MOU is to “avoid the possibility of overlapping
jurisdiction between the EPA and FDA with respect to control of drinking water additives. The two agencies agreed that the SDWA’s [Safe Drinking Water Act] passage in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s jurisdiction over drinking water as a ‘food’ under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

Under the agreement, EPA enjoys exclusive regulatory authority over drinking water served by public water supplies, including any additives in such water. FDA retains jurisdiction over bottled drinking water under Section 410 of the FFDCA and over water (and substances in
water) used in food or food processing once it enters the food processing establishment.”

Just like tobacco in the 1970′s when I was in my Master’s of Public Health and DDS education, seemed to have significant scientific strength raising concerns of harm.

“Seemed”?
Either there was or there was not. There is no “seemed”.
(Hint: Science writes stuff down. In science journals. It doesn’t get lost. It’s possible to check these things and know for sure. Historians of science can tell you when smoking was known by the scientific community to be dangerous.)

Yet tobacco smoking was done in my hospital, airplane, restaurant, and promoted by the dentist who’s practice I took over.

Meaning what exactly?
Smoking does indeed cause cancer. That’s been known for a very long time. Well before the 70’s.
There was however a very slick, expensive and (fatally) very successful disinformation campaign to make common folk think it was all undecided and too tough to understand.

And some scientists still feel the research of tobacco’s harm is not convincing.

Some scientists still feel the research of evolution is not convincing.
(nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
Some scientists still feel the research of HIV is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of the efficacy of vaccines is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of anthropogenic climate change is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of the supposed dangers of DDT is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of evolution is not convincing.
Some scientists still feel the research of germ theory is not convincing.
etc
etc
etc
It’s a very long list. Very long.
A golden oldie of science deniers of every type.

American Cancer Society is just now working on a new large study to determine whether tobacco causes cancer.

Oh really? They just woke up the other day and went “Gosh, does tobacco cause cancer? Hmm, Tough one. Beats us. Maybe we should get a study running to look at this cutting-edge hunch of ours.”

No.
The American Cancer Society (along with all the medical communities on the planet) knows perfectly well that smoking is a bloody stupid thing to do and it kills people.

In my judgment we have enough science to be reasonably certain tobacco is not healthy.

How magnanimous of you to go that extra mile and kinda sorta in a very foot-dragging way go with the scientific consensus.

Let’s not rush things shall we?
After all there’s still more research needed. Let’s reconvene in a few decades more. After all, the record shows that scientists disagee. Why there’s even a nice man on the telly helpfully informing you about all the doubt.

Water fluoridation is an adjustment of concentration of natural occurring trace element, or chemical if you prefer, in water supplies to a level optimal for community and individual health. As such, it is not medication unless the term is intentionally stretched.
As in many areas of life there are grey areas, all you have highlighted are ambiguities in definition and jurisdiction. I would bet my lunch that it was not the intent of those who drafted the regulations, that you have raised, to define community water fluoridation as being mass medication of a drug subject to the FDA.

Happily, definitions and regulations are arbitrary and can be changed.
I would hope that if anti fluoridationists do, for some reason, make headway through the backdoor of pedantic definitions, then lawmakers will move to remove any ambiguities. S Slott indicates that moves to define fluoridation as medication have so far been struck down by the courts.

Stuart, your question is one I’ve been struggling with for a long time. I wish I could post graphs here to shed light on your excellent question, but I can’t.

In 1930 the average 12 year old had about 12 cavities. When fluoridation started significantly in the USA population (ramped up), (mid 1960’s) and could start to show national effect, the 12 year old cavity rate was about 5.5/child. Fluoride toothpaste took hold nationally in the early 1970’s.

The question is, what caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation? Could it have been year round transportation of fresh fruits and veggies nation wide? Or as you ask Stuart could it have been:

“1. Education.
2. Diet change including in better educated communities an acknowledgement of the effects of free sugar.
3. Reduction in smoking.
4. Promotion of healthy lifestyles and the “glamorisation” of beautiful teeth by Hollywood et al.
5. The use of fluoride tablets in some communities prior to fluoridated water supplies.”

My answer is, I don’t know. Could have been a combination of those and antibiotics, or ????

Remember, not one single fluoridation study has controlled for that huge confounding factor(s) which are unknowns. About 5 cavity reduction in about 30 years and we don’t know what it was. We don’t know if those confounding factors are the reason the rest of the developed world, most without fluoridation, fluoride salt or fluoride supplants, reduced their cavities to the same rate as the USA. We don’t know.

In other words, world wide decay reduction regardless of fluoride exposure.

Research now claims about half a tooth surface reduction in dental caries when we don’t have a clue what caused 5.5 fewer cavity reductions.

Doctors, my professions of public health and dentistry should have serious concerns about the lack of scientific studies answering fundamental questions on the efficacy, safety and dosage of fluoride exposure.

My most serious detractors are not dentists and scientists but those who speak up with wild conspiracy theories. In fact, I wish the public health blunder were a conspiracy because at least my professions would have an excuse for our lack of scientific rigor.

Ken. I notice Dr. Bill DDS quotes among other things the official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States for a definition of “drug”. This rang alarm bells. I have noticed the source of fluoride features significantly among the antis. I have wondered about that. Homeopaths believe in chemical memory of course and presumeably F- ions remember they were once a fluorosilicate a rodent poison. Never mind that silica by itself is benign being approximately 70% of the Earth’s crust and exposed to us in various forms for millions of years.
I also noticed Dr. John Callett is active in these and other fringe health industries such as a cure all Vit D. I wondered if there is a connection and I think there is.

Perhaps that’s why Dr. Bill didn’t respond to my remarks about John Yiamouyiannis and his pursuit of alternative treatments such as Laetrile and Vitamins for his colonarectal cancer.

The link of course is the huge lucrative alternative (non scientific) therapy industry in the US.

My god! Once you visit the u tube lectures around this area you feel you have just peeked into a Victorian lunatic asylum. Either that or a Mississippi paddle steamer circa 1900!

I don’t think I’ll address or respond to Dr Bill DDS again (except in the third person). I noticed he expertly avoided referencing sources for the non F- reduction in caries. The kind of controlled experiment he is suggesting would never happen on ethical and practical grounds. You would never satisfy his criteria and he knows it.

But you and I know that valid comparisons can be made epidemiologically using sizeable subject populations relatively close geographically and socioeconomicaly especially multiple studies that reduces the significance of confounding variables to an insignificant level.

Once I discover correspondents have a concealed “other” that has skin in the games I lose interest in even polite discourse.
Stu.

Ken and others. The link I gave you to the weird land of American alternative therapies. Take care! It includes explicit porn sites! Surprise surprise! We are talking about a culture where anything goes if there’s a buck in it.

In 1988, EPA published in the Federal Register a “Notice” that it was terminating its commitment to FDA to create a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (53 FR 25586-89) In this 1988 Notice EPA admitted that it “does not currently regulate the levels of additives in drinking water.” It explained that the “SDWA does not require EPA to control the use of specific additives in drinking water.” It states,

I appreciate and fully agree that the FDA is under Federal law, FD&C Act. And the FDA to Congress testified that fluoride when used for the prevention of diseases is a drug, not a nutrient.

If fluoride were a nutrient, go to the pharmacy and ask for fluoride to swallow. The pharmacist will require an Rx. Why? because it is an unapproved drug. Ask the pharmacist to check with the FDA. Many pharmacies have stopped carrying fluoride because it is an unapproved drug.

Read our fluoride toothpaste label. It is approved and says “Drug Facts.” Why? Because the FDA says it is a drug. And the FDA requires on the approved label, “do not swallow.” The reference is to a quarter milligram of fluoride, the same amount of fluoride as in one glass of fluoridated water.

You have given a citation of the ADA to refute the FD&C Act. The ADA references an historical agreement between the FDA and EPA which has long since been abandoned. Please remember that the American Dental Association is not a Federal Agency and simply a group of like minded Dentists. The ADA testified in court that they had no duty to protect the public, they simply gave out information. As such, the ADA in their effort to support fluoridation failed to read all aspects of the MOU between the FDA and EPA.

In 1979, the EPA and FDA entered into an MOU where the FDA agreed not to enforce its food authority over public drinking water in exchange for EPA creating a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (CP 224-31) In the FFDCA, Congress gave FDA authority to regulate foods to ensure they are “safe” (21. U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(A)) and drugs to ensure they are “safe and effective” (21. U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B)). Normally for drinking water, only food regulations would be applicable and prior to 1979, the FDA generally regulated drinking water as a food. (CP224.) But after passage of the SDWA, EPA and FDA were concerned that FDA’s “food” authority and EPA’s “public drinking water” authority might result in “duplicative and inconsistent regulations” so they entered an MOU. In the MOU, FDA agreed not to use its “food” authority to regulate public drinking water, based on a commitment that EPA would adopt regulations to control additives in public drinking water.
There is no mention in the MOU that FDA would, or could, give up its “drug” authority over public drinking water and public drinking water additives. Congress required “drugs” to be “effective” (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B)) and Congress never gave EPA authority to regulate drug effectiveness. The MOU inartfully states;
[EPA and FDA] have determined that the passage of the SDWA in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s authority under the FFDCA over water used for drinking water purposes.
Read in context with the other provisions of the MOU this can only possibly be true with respect to FDA’s “food” authority and cannot be true with respect to FDA’s “drug” authority (CP 224-5; See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 474 U.S. 361, 368, 106 S.Ct. 681, 88 L. Ed.2d 691 (1986) (“agency interpretation” cannot “alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.”))
In a subsequent section, the MOU states;
[EPA and FDA] agreed that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s passage in 1974 implicitly repealed FDA’s jurisdiction over drinking water as a “food” under the [FFDCA].
Thus the MOU itself clarifies that the MOU only impacts FDA’s “food” regulations. The MOU states:
Under the agreement, EPA now retains exclusive jurisdiction over drinking water served by public water supplies, including any additives in such water.
In context, EPA does not have exclusive jurisdiction when public drinking water, including any additives in such waters, are “drugs” because Congress has given exclusive jurisdiction over drugs to the FDA. (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(B); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 126, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000).) Congress has clearly defined “drugs in 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1). Further EPA claims no authority that would give it jurisdiction over the determination of “effectiveness” of drugs.
In 1988, EPA published in the Federal Register a “Notice” that it was terminating its commitment to FDA to create a federal regulatory drinking water additives program. (53 FR 25586-89) In this 1988 Notice EPA admitted that it “does not currently regulate the levels of additives in drinking water.” It explained that the “SDWA does not require EPA to control the use of specific additives in drinking water.” It states, (see appendix )
Resource constraints and the need to implement mandatory provisions of the SDWA precluded the Agency from implementing the comprehensive program originally envisioned. . .

Steve, your comment is seriously pertinent. Stick with me and don’t skip over this. If you want a copy of the MOU, let me know and I can forward one to you.

1. The MOU relates to water as a food and the word food is used several times. The MOU does not mention the word fluoride.

2. Have you contacted the FDA CDER for FOI? I have several times. The FDA CDER agrees they have jurisdiction and are “deferring regulatory action.”

3. The Federal Safe Drinking water act prohibits the EPA from adding anything to water for the prevention of disease.
42 USC 300g-1(b)(11) states:
“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

Steve, hang in there with me. Don’t skip over this. For greater clarification, I contacted the EPA with FOI and EPA responded:
“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water. Decisions on whether or not to fluoridate drinking water are made at a state or local level.”

4. The EPA Could Not Enter Into an MOU54 With the FDA Which Requires the EPA to Violate the SDWA. If the EPA Did, Then the MOU is Invalid.
The MOU Relates to Food and NOT the Addition of Fluoride to Water With the Intent to Prevent Disease, Drugs.

5. The EPA presented to Congress:
“To answer your first question of whether we have in our possession any empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, the answer is no.”

6. The EPA professionals have been brutally concise, clear and ethical: “In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”

The EPA scientists testified in court, “. . . NFFE believes that serious errors were made by the Agency in setting the
fluoride RMCL . . . the Agency deliberately chose not to base its decision on relevant expertise. . . . The process by which EPA arrived at the RMCL for fluoride is scientifically irrational and displays an unprofessional review of relevant scientific data.”

Hang in there Steve, we still have more. The EPA scientists advised the Court:
“Fluoride as a Protected Pollutant The classic example of EPA’s protective treatment of this substance, recognized the world over and in the U.S. before the linguistic de-toxification campaign of the 1940’s and 1950’s as a major environmental pollutant, is the 1983 statement by EPA’s then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer (15), that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid recovered from the waste stream of phosphate fertilizer
manufacture as, “…an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid (sic) from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of
fluoride…”

7. Drug regulation in the US began in 1736. As early as 1848, the US began limited drug regulation. Congress adopted more comprehensive drug statutes in the Food and Drug Act of 1906, which prohibited the manufacturer of any drug that was “adulterated or misbranded.” This Act defined “drug” as:

“All medicines and preparations recognized in the United States Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary for internal or external use, and any substance or mixture of substances intended to be used for the cure, mitigation, or prevention of disease of either man or other animals;”

In 1912 Congress amended the Act to prevent false claims. In 1938 Congress amended the Act to require FDA approval for new drug application (NDA) to demonstrate a drug was safe BEFORE entering the market.

In 1951 (Durham-Humphrey Amendment) Congress explicitly defined two classes of medications, prescription and over-the-counter (OTC). In response, the FDA adopted a regulation stating:

i. The program for fluoridation of public water supplies recommended by the Federal Security Agency, through the Public Health Service, contemplates the controlled addition of fluorine at a level optimum for the prevention of dental caries.
ii. Public water supplies do not ordinarily come under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. . .
iii. The Federal Security Agency will regard water supplies containing fluorine, within the limitations recommended by the Public Health Service, as not actionable under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

And it was published as amended in 1995.

In 1996 the FDA reversed its position to not enforce the FFDCA regarding fluoridated water after the EPA/FDA MOU was terminated and after Congress adopted the DSHEA that defined minerals as drugs if used to prevent specific diseases. In 1996, the FDA determined that its 1952 regulation was obsolete or no longer necessary and the regulation was revoked. (61 FR 29476) The revocation of 212 CFR 250.203 occurred after the EPA announced the “Termination of the Federal Drinking Water Additive Program” effective April 7, 1990. (53 FR 25586-89; CP 142-45) The purpose of a 1979 MOU between FDA and EPA was having EPA operate the federal drinking water additive program. (44FR 42775-78; CP 224-31.) EPA’s announcement of termination of its additive program was effective notice to FDA that the 1979 MOU was terminated. (53 FR 42776, CP 225 “This [MOU] shall continue in effect unless . . . terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other.”)

The revocation of 21 CFR 250.203 also occurred after the adoption by Congress of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-417; “DSHEA”). This 1994 Act of Congress clarified Congressional intent that minerals including fluoride are drugs if the intended use is to prevent disease.

A dietary supplement is deemed to be “food,” [21 U.S.C.] 321 (ff), which is defined in part as “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals,” Id. 321(f)(1), except when it meets the definition of a “drug,” which is defined in part as “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.”
(Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 714 F. Supp.2d 48, 50 (D.D.C. 2010).)

Under the DSHEA, dietary supplements include minerals. (21 U.S.C.321(ff)(1)(B)) In adopting the DSHEA, Congress clarified its intent that fluoride mineral when used to prevent disease is a drug under federal law. The Commissioner of the FDA now concurs.

In 1962 Congress amended the FFDCA standard for approval of a NDA or ANDA from “safe” to “safe and effective” for the intended use. (Samuels at 545.) For drugs with approved NDAs under the 1938 Act to retain these NDAs, they were required to demonstrate they were effective. (Id.; Weinberger v. Hynson, Wescott & Dunning, Inc, 412 U.S. 609, 612-15, 93 S.Ct. 2469, 37 L.Ed.2d 207 (1973).)

In 1972, the FDA established a new approval process for non-prescription drugs. (21 CFR Part 330.) This process resulted in the establishment of over-the-counter monographs for various drug classifications including a monograph for anticaries drug products that do not require prescription. (21 CFR Part 355.) This final rule, as amended, provides that all OTC anticaries drug products introduced to the Market after April, 1997 must comply with general conditions in 21 CFR 330.1 and with anticaries monograph conditions in 21 CFR Part 355; otherwise a NDA or ANDA is required.

On or after [April 7, 1997] no OTC drug product that is subject to the monograph and that contains a non-monograph condition . . . may be initially introduced. . . into interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an approved application or abbreviated application.

Also, FDA regulations provide that any anticaries drug that includes hydrogen fluoride requires an NDA. (21 CFR 310.545(a)(2) and (b).)

Once again, federal law is clear “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term “drug” means
(A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
(B) articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease in man or other animals;”

Sodium Fluoride is listed in the 2007 US Pharmacopoeia pages 3194-3196. Congress, the President, the Oregon Legislature and Governor have clearly defined drugs, and fluoride is listed as a drug and the intent of adding/formulating fluoride with water is to prevent dental disease. The intent of use makes fluoride a drug regardless of whether it is a placebo or hoax. Although the addition of fluoride has been tossed like a hot potato between agencies, currently the FDA CDER has jurisdiction of substances used with the intent to prevent disease even if they are mixed in public water.
As early as 1916, the federal Supreme Court concurred that products that were otherwise defined as “foods” would be “drugs” under federal statute when labeling for the substance includes statements of therapeutic or preventative effect. (Seven Cases v. United States, 239 U.S. 510, 513-14, 36 S.Ct. 190, 60 L.Ed. 411 (1016).) And after the 1938 Act again concurred that “food products” will be “drugs” based on “labeling.” (Kordel v. United States, 335 U.S. 345, 346, 69 S.Ct. 106, 93 L.Ed. 52 (1948).) In 1969, the federal Supreme Court, in finding a product was a drug, explained,
Congress intended to define “drug” [in 21 U.S.C. 321 (g)(1)(B)] far more broadly than does the medical profession…. The word “drug” is a term of art for the purposes of the Act, encompassing far more than the strict medical definition of that word.
(United States v. An Articl of Drug …Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784, 793, 89 S.Ct. 1410, 22 L.Ed.2d 726 (1969).) The Bacto-Unidisk Court

Ken,
Stuart is gone crazy of the subject. If he has a problem with the FD&C Act that has science, or if he has problems with science, then he needs to talk about science and not jump all over the place regarding cancer treatments and knocking people.

I just demonstrated that the ADA has an obsolete reference. But that does not mean all their references are bogus.

Ken. Valid comparisons can’t really be made between populations greatly seperated by space and time can they?
Presumeably changes in diet, for example the marketing of coke on a global scale would affect valid comparisons before and after WWII?
American servicemen inadvertently promoted Camel cigarettes and Coke.
I remain convinced that local studies of adjacent populations are the best guidelines. I notice some of the antis in NZ are fond of quoting precedents in Europe and elsewhere with absolutely no consideration of other mitigating factors ie cultural and other regulatory factors.

Bill, I asked a simple question becuase you had implied that regulations described fluoride, when used to top up natural lecels in water to an acceptable concentration, as a drug.

My question was:

“could you please quote specifically (and link if possible) the section of the document by the FDA CER you mention that relates directly to fluoride (natural or added) in drinking water at the recommended concentrations. I realise such regulations can cover dental preparations etc., but our interest is specifically normal drinking water.”

Now, I have had a sleep before tackling your answer and my refreshed mind is still not convinced by it. No wonder people who make this sort of point end up involving lawyers (and even then don’t seem to none able to convince most people). This question is currently before the high court in NZ – in action brought by an astroturf “health” organisation. They will lose, but of course appeal to drag out the issue for several years. Meanwhile giving local politicians and excuse to ignore the declared will of the voters.

Really dishonest and undemocratic – no wonder people are getting angry with these activist organisations and their bullying behaviour.

In my first article in this exchange I called Paul’s use of the drug argument a classical bait and switch fallacy. He and you are using a definition of “drug” so loose as the capture F (and inevitably the minerals like Ca and PO4) in water as a drug. Then switching to a narrow definition that requires informed consent and might cover something like a dental treatment contains f! but not drinking water.

I am not impressed by such arguments which involve a circuitous wandering around regulations, assumptions and definitions to arrive at a preordained conclusion.

The organisation is, I think, the NZ Health trust. I think it may have been set up for financial reasons to protect activists from consequences of legal actions.

Scanning their material they are in to things like chemtrails. I have been amazed at the proportion of local anti-fluoride activists, especially the leaders, who are also active on things like chemtrails, anti-vaccinations, homeopathy, alternative medications and supplements, kinesiology, conspiracies about Agenda 21 and population control, etc. in fact, it is not hard to get them diverted onto such subjects.

I think journalists should not stop at calling them a “health” organisation – readers should have the opportunity to see what they are really about and draw their own conclusions.

Dunno but ex minister Katherine Rich was the spin doctor for some group against the stuff. at the time I remember thinking her reasoning was outrightly dishonest.
Science denial seems to get a sympathetic ear with National Party pollies.

Here
“There are few data from which to estimate total exposure to and
the bioavailability of fluoride, and there are inconsistencies in reports
on the characterization of its adverse effects.
There is clear evidence from India and China that skeletal fluorosis
and an increased risk of bone fractures occur at a total intake of 14 mg
fluoride/day and evidence suggestive of an increased risk of bone

effects at total intakes above about 6 mg fluoride/day.

Excess exposure to bioavailable fluoride constitutes a risk to
aquatic and terrestrial biota.
Fluoride-sensitive species can be used as sentinels for the identification
of fluoride hazards to the environment.
There is a need to improve knowledge on the accumulation of
fluoride in organisms and on how to monitor and control this.
The biological effects associated with fluoride exposure should be
better characterized.”
From WHO_EHC_227
There is much more in the report you can read some for & some against
It would appear we certainly have toxicity to at least the bone structure above above 6mg fluoride which almost halves the CDC recommendation of 10 mg per day scary isn’t it. Both supposedly reading current literature.
Even if you take the view damage up to 10mg/day is cosmetic a safety factor of 4mg/day doesn’t constituent a very good safety margin

Shellfish naturally accumulate fluoride which is quite likely why Pacific people were reported by early European explorers as having excellent teeth.
This simply proves fluoride is not a hazard or toxin at appropriate concentrations.

In fairness, I will check into the information you have provided in regard to EPA regulatory authority over fluoride at the optimal level, but it still appears that you are predicating it all upon your own opinion that fluoride at this level is a drug. It is not, as the courts have upheld. It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which already exists in water. The EPA has full regulatory authority over all such water additives.

The reason fluoride requires a prescription at the pharmacy is not because is has not been FDA approved. That would make no sense. No, the reason is to place responsibility on the provider to ensure that the fluoride supplement in addition to the patient’s primary water source, does not cause an overexposure to fluoride. This ensures as best as possible that patient’s primary water source has been evaluated for fluoride concentration prior to their being given supplements. Requiring prescriptions for fluoride supplements simply allows the same precaution against overexposure as does water fluoridation. Prior to fluoridating any system, that system must be evaluated for the concentration of existing fluoride.

My cite of the ADA was not meant to use the ADA as an authoritative source on water additive regulations, it was simply given to provide the source of the quote I inserted. The statutes and regulations are readily available as a matter of public record.

Skeletal fluorosis is not an issue with water fluoridation. The United States is 73% fluoridated.

“Several of the more recent reviews on the safety of fluoride intake have discussed skeletal fluorosis, which is extremely rare in the United States. Epidemiological studies in the U.S. of communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water 3.3 to 8 times the amount in optimally adjusted water supplies found no evidence of skeletal fluorosis. Pages 45-47 of the 1991 Department of Health and Human Services document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks discusses the topic of skeletal fluorosis topic in more detail and provides references. Only 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis have ever been reported in the U.S. In these cases, the total fluoride intake was 15 to 20 mg./fluoride per day for 20 years.”

——http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/request&response/1d.shtml

Adverse effects on the environment are not an issue with water fluoridation.

“Fluoridated water losses during use, dilution of sewage by rain and groundwater infiltrate, fluoride removal during secondary sewage treatment, and dif­fusion dynamics at effluent outfall combine to elimi­nate fluoridation related environmental effects. In a literature review, Osterman found no instance of municipal water fluoridation causing recommended environmental concentrations to be exceeded, although excesses occurred in several cases of severe industrial water pollution not related to water fluoridation. Osterman found that overall river fluoride con­centrations theoretically would be raised by 0.001-0.002 mg/l, a value not measurable by current analytic tech­niques. All resulting concentrations would be well below those recommended for environmental safety.”

—–Water Fluoridation and the Environment: Current Perspective in the United States
Howard F. Pollick, BDS, MPH
Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343–350

—-Osterman JW. Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluori­dation on the aquatic environment. Am J Public Health. 1990; 80:1230-5.

First: FDA CDER. Several parts to your question. But first the answers need to be framed with an understanding of drug regulatory agencies. The manufacturers seek approval, not the agency looking for manufacturers to regulate. The manufacturer must seek approval prior to marketing. Regulation after the product is being sold does not protect the public. Drugs must be approved prior to marketing. I have personally made application to the FDA for a dental device and received approval. The process for devices is reasonable. For drugs, the process costs about $3/4 of a million dollars for the application and that does not include all the necessary research to support the application. Very expensive. Fees can be waved with application and prior to marketing, approval is required.

Drug Digest 1975, “The FDA has addressed a ”regulatory letter” to approximately 35 companies marketing combination drugs consisting of fluoride and vitamins. The letter states that these drugs are related to a product (Ernziflur lozenges) for which FDA has withdrawn approval of a new drug application. The NDA for Enziflur was withdrawn because there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling.”

Because FDA has withdrawn approval for fluoride supplements, water districts do not want to rock the ship by making application for approval. If denied, the FDA would or should send regulatory letters to all the other water districts.

It is the obligation of those selling the drug to gain approval. The FDA CDER says ((about 2010 Pharmacy Letters) there are thousands of unapproved drugs on the market. They are doing incentives for manufacturers to gain approval, but they have a long way to go and falling behind.

Specifically to your question, the FDA CDER has approved fluoride toothpaste with variable wording on the label, but not fluoride varnish or fluoride supplements. Ken, you are correct with a concern that fluoride varnish is an unapproved drug. When a manufacturer chooses not to gain FDA approval, they set up a sister company and sell the unapproved drug directly to doctors so the doctor has greater liability.

You have asked for a specific quote, I presume position statement, on the FDA CDER. Approval is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the patient or public. The FDA CDER is very clear. The intent of use, by the public perception, claims on the internet, manufacturer marketing or other places is the basis of whether a product is a drug or not. Makes no difference if the substance is a placebo and no claim of benefit is made. In the USA you can go to many health food stores like Whole Foods and they have a “supplement section.” Read the labels and wording of what the supplement treats is not on the bottle. A sales person will help you for the right potent for your ills or fears, but the manufacturer is very careful. You can look in a book at the end of the isle for help. Some wording such as “supports heart health” has been approved.

Second: “topping up natural fluoride concentrations in water.”

As I explained earlier, the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to treat water and prohibits the EPA from treating people. It makes no difference whether the water district is adding a placebo or hocus pocus, the “INTENT” of adding the substance to the water makes fluoride a drug. Better a drug than a poison. Based on laws, either fluoride is regulated as a poison or drug. Take your pick. Once the “intent” is determined, the regulatory agency needs to be contacted for approval.

If “topping up” were an exception to drug laws then the manufacturer should have a letter or notice that they are exempt.

Lithium could be added to “top up” concentration, a substance to help many have better moods. With more time and patients on Lithium, we now understand more side effects and that option has been pulled off the table.

Viagra is another option for water districts to “top” up. Think of all the people who would move to that water district!!!

Penicillin is naturally occurring and could also be “topped up” and help prevent infections.

None of those are legal without the proper regulatory agency’s approval.

Ken,
You have raised several excellent points.
Further to your comment: “In my first article in this exchange I called Paul’s use of the drug argument a classical bait and switch fallacy. He and you are using a definition of “drug” so loose as the capture F (and inevitably the minerals like Ca and PO4) in water as a drug. Then switching to a narrow definition that requires informed consent and might cover something like a dental treatment contains f! but not drinking water.”

Read FDA CDER drug approval guidance documents, the FDA CDER is very specific and uses several illustrations to explain the definition of drugs, cosmetics, and foods.

Why are Ca and PO4 not drugs?
First, they are not toxic at 50 mg/Kg of BW and fluoride is toxic and regulated as a highly toxic substance. (Also remember that CaF is about 70 times less toxic than NaF).
Second Ca and PO4 are required for physiologic function. In other words, no Ca in the diet and the body dies. The lack or absence of fluoride in the diet does not cause any disease, as illustrated by mother’s milk.

Ken,
You suggest I am trying to use a narrow definition or wide definition and not following regulations.

I have given you Federal laws under which all in the USA must follow. If there is one area of law which is reasonably well fleshed out, it is drug laws and water laws.

I am consistent with my definitions. Please read my posts again. The definition I am using is based on Federal and State Laws which are similar in all countries. Would you like me to get you the NZ laws? USA FDA CDER guidance documents give further guidance. Took me years to switch my position from pro-fluoride to fluoride free water. Not easy to admit I had only looked at one side of the research and only followed the ADA instead of looking at the laws and science for myself.

Most government agencies when contacted, need very specific questions and repeated questions. This is a complex issue. And always get responses in writing. Your 1981 Medicine law states:

“Meaning of medicine, new medicine, prescription medicine, and restricted medicine
(1) Subject to subsection (2), in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term medicine means any substance or article, other than a medical device, that is manufactured, imported, sold, or supplied wholly or principally—
(a) for administering to 1 or more human beings for a therapeutic purpose; or . . . . ”

Is fluoride formulated with water for the purpose of treating water to make it safe to drink or for therapeutic purposes?

Steve: “In fairness, I will check into the information you have provided in regard to EPA regulatory authority over fluoride at the optimal level, but it still appears that you are predicating it all upon your own opinion that fluoride at this level is a drug.”

Bill: the EPA does not use the term optimal level for fluoride because there is no optimal level above zero for toxicants. EPA uses the term “Contaminant” for fluoride. Contaminants are not desired.

Steve: “It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which already exists in water.”

Bill: My understanding is NaF (and HFS) is toxic at about 5 to 15 mg/kg BW whereas naturally occurring CaF is toxic at about 700 mg/kg BW. The difference is substantial and the two substances are not identical. CaF is not very soluble.

Steve: “The EPA has full regulatory authority over all such water additives.”

Bill: Yes, if the intent is to treat water. If the intent is to formulate a therapeutic substance, a drug or medicine, then the FDA CDER has regulatory authority. In other words, you and I cannot dilute our Crack with public water and call it an additive and under EPA authority.

Steve: “The reason fluoride requires a prescription at the pharmacy is not because is has not been FDA approved. That would make no sense.”

Bill: Look up fluoride on the approved drug data base of the FDA. Easy search. I’ve done it several times and my pharmacist did it in about 30 seconds. After seeing it was not approved he pulled it from the shelf. It is legal for a pharmacist to sell unapproved drugs, but FDA is cracking down on them so they are pulling the unapproved drugs off their shelves. Even in time of war, a person cannot be given an approved drug for an unapproved purpose without their consent.

Steve: “No, the reason is to place responsibility on the provider to ensure that the fluoride supplement in addition to the patient’s primary water source, does not cause an overexposure to fluoride.”

Bill: Steve, two points. First, the doctor can prescribe anything they want in any quantity they want and the doctor is liable for adverse effects. Still illegal for the manufacturer, but FDA has bigger fish to fry. Second, you make an excellent consideration, dosage. Some people drink almost no water and others drink as much as 11 liters a day. Lets think through your valid concern. Assume one person drinks 1 liter/day at 1 ppm. Adding a supplement of 0.5 mg would, according to your (and my) concern be a 50% increase (excess) and perhaps an over dose at 1.5 mg/day of fluoride. Are you concerned about 1.5 mg/day of fluoride to be excessive? I am for infants, children, and some with compromised kidney thyroid or absorption concerns. Well, if you and I are concerned about 1.5 mg/day, then 11 liters at 1 ppm or 11 mg/day of fluoride should give us serious pause for concern.

Steve: “Requiring prescriptions for fluoride supplements simply allows the same precaution against overexposure as does water fluoridation.”

Bill: Please explain. I don’t understand how water fluoridation when people drink vastly different quantities of water is any protection against overexposure.

Sorry, Bill, but you are still predicating your arguments on your own personal opinion that fluoride at the optimal level is a drug. You can certainly try to make that argument in court as have other fluoridation opponents, but the courts have rejected it each and every time.

In regard to NaF and CaF being different from that added with fluoridation, yes, that argument is frequently attempted by fluoridation opponents. I’m surprised that you attempt it, however, as you seem far more informed than to make that mistake. The fact is that the only products of HFA hydrolysis are fluoride ions and trace heavy metal contaminants. The fluoride ions are identical to those which exist in water “naturally” as released from CaF, and those released from NaF, or any other source. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of its source. The trace contaminants are in such miniscule amounts that they fall far short of EPA mandated maximums (MCL) and EPA mandated NSF Standard 60 certification requirements. The most prevalent of these contaminants is arsenic. The amount of arsenic detected in NSF testing has been only 0.6 parts per billion, or 60% of the NSF certification maximum which is only 10 % of the EPA. MCL for arsenic. The other contaminants are in even more miniscule amounts and fall even farther short of NSF allowed maximums under Standard 60. Certainly you may attempt to argue your own opinion as to what should be allowable maximums, if you want, but you would be arguing against the stringent safety controls set by respected regulatory bodies of the U.S. government. Sixty eight years worth of experience with fluoridation has not shown any proof of these controls being inadequate.

Your obsession with FDA approval of fluoride is moot. The FDA has no authority or jurisdiction over mineral additives to water. There is no requirement or need for FDA approval of fluoride at 0.7 ppm added to water. My statement that your argument made no sense was in regard to your erroneous claim that the reason fluoride requires a prescription is because it is not FDA approved. Your reason is what would make no sense. My explanation of the reason for prescription of fluoride supplements is self explanatory in my previous comment.

Once again, as to FDA “approval”:

“The FDA is just one of several regulatory agencies that ensure public safety. The FDA’s authority is limited to products sold to the public and fluoride has been approved for use in toothpastes, mouth rinses and even bottled water. The FDA has no role in approving drinking water additives pursuant to their agreement with the EPA in the early 1980’s. Additives are covered by state regulations. It should be noted that the FDA does not have the authority to approve many of the products we use every day.”

—-http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_quiz.html.

I have no idea why you would prescribe 0.5 mg fluoride supplement to an individual whose primary water supply already has a fluoride content of 1 ppm. This is exactly my point. Requiring prescription for fluoride supplements ascribes responsibility to the prescriber to evaluate the patient’s primary water source for fluoride content before any additional is given. In the case of your patient who drinks one liter of water fluoridated at 1 ppm, there would be no need to give him a fluoride supplement.

Anyone who drinks 11 liters of water per day had best be concerned about water toxicity, not fluoride. My statement was that water fluoridation accords the same safety precaution against overexposure as does requiring a prescription. Both require existing levels of fluoride in the primary water supply be evaluated prior to the addition of more fluoride either through fluoridation or supplements.

The broad range between fluoride at the optimal level and the IOM established upper level before adverse effects, easily allows for differences in water consumption. Even your water toxic fellow who consumes 11 liters of water per day would only be ingesting 7.7 mg of fluoride. That excessive amount of water consumption would most certainly be at the upper range of the CDC estimate for total intake, i.e. 75 % from the water. So, even this fellow would only be consuming 10.26 mg of fluoride from all sources daily, assuming there is anyone who drinks this ridiculous amount and survives. Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for such excessive behavior, anyway.

Steve,
You suggested skeletal fluorosis is not an issue with water fluoridation. Don’t brush that concern into the dust bin just yet, NRC 2006 did not.

Several serious problems. First, some people drink a lot more water than others. Perhaps at 1 liter a day or 2 a day, but what about 11 liters of water a day? And what if they are also swallowing toothpaste or eating foods naturally high in fluoride or with fluoride pesticides or fluoride post harvest fumigants, etc?

Another huge problem is just like decay is not the same size or problem for each tooth, skeletal fluorosis is different for different people. In some areas of the world endemic skeletal fluorosis exists. As you can imagine, not everyone in those communities is all crippled up. So what are the early signs of skeletal fluorosis? Arthritic like symptoms and joint problems. Could excess fluoride ingestion cause arthritic like symptoms. Yes. Research is raising concerns that fluoride might contribute to our huge increases in arthritic like symptoms and joint problems. Definitive evidence? Yes, that fluoride can contribute. Certainly many other factors, just like white spots on the teeth are not all dental fluorosis.

And we have not touched several huge problems of research evaluation, total exposure, risks, and benefits.

Alarming to consider the magnitude of the research problem with fluoridation. Not one single prospective randomized controlled trial and so many variables and unknowns. In effect, we are discussion and have taken positions on a subject which we really have incomplete evidence.

Proponents will take poor or fair research and say it is good with gusto and confidence. Opponents will do the same for their research. Then each will rip the other person’s research apart finding serious flaws. In such debate, it is almost better to not have any research because the focus is on the flaws of the other person’s research. The best example of that is fluoride and the brain. Proponents have no research and so they pick at each hair on the elephant and fail to recognize the elephant.

For example,

1. Plotting the 50 US states on the percent of whole state population fluoridated and mental retardation reported in 1992.
As the percent of the populations on fluoridated water increases a tripling of mental retardation is found. Consistent with half a standard deviation drop in IQ, about 8 IQ points and consistent with Choi’ study from Harvard.

I can hear everyone say, “that’s impossible with water fluoridation at 1 ppm.” Well, water is only one source of fluoride. Yep. Looks like we just might have lower IQ with fluoridation. And proponents say, “poor study.” And I say, Yep, show me your better study. And proponents are silent. But silence is not proof of safety or harm. The question then must be asked, why not ask for FDA CDER opinion? Those are the best experts in the world at evaluating science. Proponents are silent. And then we start to discuss the flaws in the research rather than the elephant in the room which is a lack of USA studies on the effects of fluoridation on IQ. We don’t even look, and that is supposed to prove safety. Makes no sense to me.

2. “The effects of excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy on neonatal neurobehavioral development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. . . The results showed that the urinary fluoride levels of mothers from the high fluoride group were higher than those of the control group. There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score
between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological. Although development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. . . The
results showed that the urinary fluoride levels of mothers from the high fluoride group were higher than those of the control group. There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were
also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction between the two groups. It is concluded that fluoride is toxic to neurodevelopment and that excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy can cause adverse effects on neonatal neurobehavioral development.” For mother’s in the “high fluoride group the urinary fluoride level averaged 3.58±1.47 mg/L, .
. . the control group (1.74±0.96 mg/L)”
Li J, li Y, Shao QL, Wu CY, EFFECTS OF HIGH FLUORIDE LEVEL ON NEONATAL NEUROBEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, Fluoride April-June 2008, 41(2)165-170
[Translated by Bin Li and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Endemiology 2004 Sep;23(5):463-5.] Appendix 39 Full Article. Note: Subject wells 1.7- 6.0 mg F/L and control wells 0.5-1.0 mg F/L and subject urine samples were 3.58 mg F/L ±1.47 and controls 0.18-2.6 mg F/L statistically significant (p<0.01)

I can hear the proponents screaming, "that is from the Fluoride Journal and we won't accept that." My response is two things. First, it was published first by the Chinese in their peer reviewed journal. And second, show me USA research which reports safety. Only after you provide better research can we trash their research. Is that article proof? No but it is a nail in the coffin.

3. “This paper presents a systematic literature review conducted to
investigate whether fluoride exposure has increased the risk of low intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in China over the past 20 years. . . . Children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area.” SOURCE: Tang QQ, DuJ, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ,
Fluoride and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis, Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Winter: 126(1-3):115-20

Remember, the USA fluorosis has gone up to 40% of children and that is after redefining dental fluorosis. So look at the serum fluoride concentrations. Reasonable journal, reasonable study. Are we going to throw out all Chinese studies because of prejudice? Simply because they looked first while we in the USA sat smugly by claiming safe and effective because we refused to look ad study?

4. “We found that exposure to fluoride (F) in urine was associated
with reduced Performance, Verbal, and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounders. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable…. The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.” SOURCE: Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.

OK, lets rip this one apart. Increased fluoride in urine. Better than measuring water, but still we assume good kidney function.

5. “These negative correlations between IQ and urinary As and
between IQ and urinary fluoride indicate that exposure to high levels of As or fluoride, or both, could affect children’s intelligence… This study indicates that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with neurotoxic effects in children.” SOURCE: Wang SX, et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin county, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7.

Remember, the HFS acid added to water often contains some arsenic and increases lead in blood serum.

6. “In agreement with other studies elsewhere, these findings
indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence.” SOURCE: Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178-183.

7. In 2006, more than 20 of the human studies finding brain damage
with higher exposures of fluoride had not been published in English. The 2006 NRC Report said, “A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough
to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 6. Those studies of US populations have not been done.

OK, so we now have almost 8 years after the NRC called for more studies. Please provide the quality studies, you know, the kind you think are quality, done in the USA, published in good journals, which have found the lower threshold at which not neurologic damage is observed.

Bill, you’re dealing in hypotheticals. I’m dealing in realities. Skeletal fluorosis is so extremely rare in the U.S. as to be almost non-existent. With 73% of the nation fluoridated, were we all being overexposed, skeletal fluorosis would be rampant.

Steve
“Sorry, Bill, but you are still predicating your arguments on your own personal opinion that fluoride at the optimal level is a drug. You can certainly try to make that argument in court as have other fluoridation opponents, but the courts have rejected it each and every time.”
Etc etc.
An absolutely outstanding example of accuracy and clarity of thought. The antis persist in obfuscation, equivocation and hypotheticals “what if ….”. Given their small numbers I wonder if they fall within the frequency range of OCDs? I’ll look it up.

On the question of OCDs in relation to the fluoride debate. I did some delving and came up with some encouraging preliminaries. Readers can judge for themselves and read further. At the very least it is worth bearing in mind when confronting a certain kind of patterned ritualised procedure that seems to be immune to reasoned argument or selectively dwells on improbabilities and hypotheticals that seem to defy common experience.

The Introduction in Stanford.edu starts
“Clinical Picture
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized by obsessions or compulsions or both. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (Fourth Edition) describes obsessions as recurrent, persistent ideas, thoughts, images or impulses that are experienced at some time during the illness as ego-dystonic, i.e., intrusive, senseless, excessive, repugnant, or absurd. The obsessions are not simply worries about real-life problems. Common morbid themes are contamination, aggression, harm avoidance, distasteful or excessive sexual ideas, religious concerns, fears of offending others, a need to know, orderliness and perfection. The person recognizes these ideas as products of his or her own mind and tries to suppress or ignore them, without much success.”

“Despite the irrational behaviour, OCD is sometimes associated with above-average intelligence.[4][5] Its sufferers commonly share personality traits such as high attention to detail, avoidance of risk, careful planning, exaggerated sense of responsibility and a tendency to take time in making decisions.[6]”

And some pretty famous and successful people have been OCD.

“Despite the irrational behaviour, OCD is sometimes associated with above-average intelligence.[4][5] Its sufferers commonly share personality traits such as high attention to detail, avoidance of risk, careful planning, exaggerated sense of responsibility and a tendency to take time in making decisions.[6]”

I think it is reasonable to assume some members of the fraternity will qualify perhaps remembering most of us exhibit some signs in restricted ways. Maybe the capacity to suppress the impulse is a factor too. But I think the tendency to persist with discredited ideas and arguments is a rather telling one. My remarks are likely to be labelled ad hominen by some but in view of my last point (persistence of discredited ideas) I think the issue has to be at least considered.

Stuart,
You raise some excellent points.
Wrong Courts. The Federal Courts deal with Federal law. FDA CDER has not been taken to court over fluoridation, to my knowledge. Takes a great deal of money to fight cities and counties, states and Federal governments in court because they have deep pockets, unlimited tax payer money.

You have mentioned “optimal” fluoride a couple times. Please define your term. Are you talking optimal for water, food, urine, serum or tooth?
Please be more specific.

I’m not looking for any stage of skeletal fluorosis. Opponents often try to make an argument for the 3 stages, when confronted with the rarity of the disorder. But, the fact is that skeletal fluorosis is so rare that it is nearly non-existent. With tens of millions of people having ingested fluoridated water for decades, there would have been epidemics of clearly diagnosable Stage 2 and stage 3 SF were there any problematic overdosing of fluoride occurring. There have not been. Make the argument if you wish, but 68 years of experience says otherwise.

Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
Perhaps we should look at the chemistry of NaCl then assuming NaF is more reactive (normally in chemistry F would be more reactive than Cl) The question I have is how does NaF interfere with NaCl biochemistry?

Steve,
Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.

Same as the argument used by the tobacco companies. Unless a person drops dead instantly, then it is safe. I reject that argument.

NRC 2006, “Overall, the committee finds that the predicted bone fluoride concentrations that can be achieved from lifetime exposure to fluoride at 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg bone ash) fall within or exceed the ranges of concentrations that have been associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis.”

All a person needs to do is drink 4 liters of water a day and they will be exposed to the same as 1 liter of 4 mg/L of water and that is assuming normal kidney function and a diet not high in fluoride or swallowing fluoride toothpaste. Simply too many assumptions for my comfort. Certainly confidence is not high that fluoride at 1 ppm or 0.7 ppm is protective of everyone. And remember, there is no caution or warning with fluoridation not to consume too much water.

What some fluoridationists seem to have done, is put tradition and dental caries above other diseases such as skeletal fluorosis. You suggest opponents of fluoridation have three stages of skeletal fluorosis. So before we even start with harm, we need to review some aspects of skeletal fluorosis. A good source is the National Academy of Science 2006 report for the EPA. On page 139 it provides some background.
“Skeletal Fluorosis
Excessive intake of fluoride will manifest itself in a musculoskeletal disease with a high morbidity. This pathology has generally been termed skeletal fluorosis. Four stages of this affliction have been defined, including a preclinical stage and three clinical stages that characterize the severity. The preclinical stage and clinical stage I are composed of two grades of increased skeletal density as judged by radiography, neither of which presents with significant clinical symptoms. In clinical stage II, symptoms characterized by sporadic pain, stiffness of joints, and osteosclerosis of the pelvis and spine are observed. Clinical stage III is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones. Stage III has been termed “crippling” skeletal fluorosis because mobility is significantly affected as a result of excessive calcifications in joints, ligaments, and vertebral bodies. This stage may also be associated with muscle wasting and neurological deficits due to spinal cord compression. The current MCLG is based on induction of crippling skeletal fluorosis (50 Fed. Reg. 20164 [1985]). Because the symptoms associated with stage II skeletal fluorosis could affect mobility and are precursors to more serious mobility problems, the committee judges that stage II is more appropriately characterized as the first stage at which the condition is adverse to health. Thus, this stage of the affliction should also be considered in evaluating any proposed changes in drinking water standards for fluoride.”

Can we agree there are four stages. NRC 2006 agreed stage II is adverse to health. At least that’s what we know as of today. Give us more research, I would suggest stage I will someday be of greater concern. But as of today, we need more research.

NRC 2006 continues on page 140, “In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased (see Chapter 3). It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons (Hanhijarvi et al. 1972) and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis (Juncos
and Donadio 1972; Johnson et al. 1979).”

Apparently some sub populations are at higher risk. NRC 2006 reports only 5 cases of stage III in the USA over a 37 year period. One can argue that the greater good of decay reduction is worth the sacrifice of 5 people and argue those 5 might still have had skeletal fluorosis. Obviously if it were my family, I would not be so cavalier.”

And the section concludes, “The condition (stage II and III) does not appear to have been systematically investigated in recent years in U.S. populations that have had long-term exposures to high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. Thus, research is needed on clinical stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis to clarify the relationship of fluoride
ingestion, fluoride concentration in bone, and clinical symptoms.”

Steve, my confidence level is very low that fluoridation is not contribution to harm of skeletal fluorosis for at least some.

Please provide research to raise my confidence in the safety of fluoridation for everyone.

Really, how? Do you have any idea what physiological mechanisms are involved?

No?

The Choi study is a meta analysis and as such should be treated as one; perhaps good at giving an overview of of a topic but limited to useless at providing any useful therapeutic conclusions.

But regarding the Choi study.

It’s not just a poor study, it’s utterly useless showing a causitive relationship between low IQ and Fluoride.

And especially in the 0.7ppm range which is where this blog is concerned.

But this study is rolled out and paraded time and again as though it means something – and right on queue, you have done just that.

You said “And proponents say, “poor study.” And I say, Yep, show me your better study. And proponents are silent”

mmm….where to begin.

It is the responsibilty of the person who claims something is so…is so, and why.

If anyone has a sneaking suspicion that the government is adding chemicals to commercial planes to dump on the general population in order to dumb them down then the onus of proof is NOT on me to prove that this is not the case.

and the inevitable “But silence is not proof of safety or harm”

Sigh, yes of course you are right, but don’t forget it is YOUR responsibilty in the first place to show that Fluoridated water influences IQ. You suspect it.
Not me.
I don’t have any responsibility whatsoever to provide ANY studies to show relationship between fluoride and IQ.

Or
fluoride and obesity
fluoride and happiness
fluoride and ADHD
fluoride and commodity prices
fluoride and the existence of the tooth fairy

Any accidental ingestion, for example children swallowing fluoridated toothpaste will prompt the advice from our national (NZ) Poison Centre,
“you have nothing to worry about”.
Dr. Bill and his friends indulging in scare tactics.
NZs principle problem is over indulgence in alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and methamphetamine which causes marked cognitive impairment, temporary or permanent. This is almost certainly reflected in road, workplace accidents and domestic violence, a worldwide problem that betrays the anti F-s as charlatans and Flat Earthers.

Dear Bill, Welcome to New Zealand, a wonderful country that I have visited twice and am very happy to see that their country has embraced water fluoridation as the foundation for a sound dental public health policy.

I feel like this will be a PRATT response to you: “points responded a thousand times”. For you, it doesn’t matter how many times a supporter of fluoridation responds to your accusations about fluoridation.

Let’s look at the NRC 2006 report:
From page 2 of the Executive Summary for the 2006 NRC Report reference on what exactly the 12-member panel of the committee DID NOT review:

“Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge”.

There were 3 avowed opponents to fluoridation on the 12 member panel of the 2006 NRC Study. The three anti’s goal was to get the MCLG for fluoride reduced to 0. They did not succeed.

The report came out in March 2006 that concluded at 4 ppm or above there were only 3 concerns:
1) 10% of kids would get severe dental fluorosis (drops to 0 % at 2 ppm).
Drinking water at a fluoride concentration of 4 ppm or above over a lifetime:
2) Increased risk of skeletal fluorosis
3) Increased risk for bone fractures.

The 3 opponents signed off on the final document, but they continue to do the anti-fluoride circuit claiming that fluoridation at optimal levels causes all kinds of “ugly things”.

On March 22, 2013, Dr. John Doull sent this E-mail to Matt Jacob of the PEW Foundation:
“Dear Matt, In response to your question, I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level. I also feel that there is no reason why Kansas City residents should avoid drinking the fluoridated water that is provided by the community water system. Sincerely, John Doull, M.D., PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee report on Fluoride in Drinking Water.
(for my Kiwi readers, Dr. Doull resides in Kansas City, Kansas, USA)

You said;
“Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.”

Who here has said this?

I know you have been reading, as you respond to some questions so I can’t accuse you of not reading. It appears that have you just have a closed your mind, you just don’t seem to take on board what is being written – exasperating!

This mirrors Kurt’s observation of a PRATT’s.
You appear cogent, educated. You can string sentences together coherently so – why oh why are you doing this?

You said “Same as the argument used by the tobacco companies.”
Forgive me, but you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist…

You said “Unless a person drops dead instantly, then it is safe. I reject that argument.”

Yes, I too reject that argument. It’s stupid and ignorant.

But what is interesting is that you have just ascribed it as an argument proposed and supported by fluoride proponents. Who has said this?

This is a straw man argument, a species of logical fallacy.

Bill, you have changed/altered what others have said/meant before in the past.

Great post Christopher!
“The Philosopher” said the best way to deal with people who maintain contraries is not to. The great Scot Thomas Reid was even less accomodating. “If all else fails resort to irony or even sarcasm”.

I like Jeffersons other famous remark.
“Any ass can kick a barn down but it takes a carpenter to build one!”
Translates very well I think to this debate. Visionary courageous people implement policies to improve human well being and dickheads sabotage them.

I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position on important issues and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.

Both sides are amazed that the other side could believe such radically different things about this fluoridation issue. One way to respond to this is to keep asking questions, keep learning, and keep teaching and hope somehow understanding and maybe agreement can be reached. The other way is to descend into name calling.

I don’t know which side of this debate you are on, Stuart, but it doesn’t matter. It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”. Name calling shows you are not patient enough to stick to rational discussion and either be convinced or convince someone else.

Ian, do you not recognise that posting a comment like the one you have without being able to present a proper reference is very unconvincing. It adds nothing to your argument and actually undermines you credibility.

“Several serious problems. First, some people drink a lot more water than others. Perhaps at 1 liter a day or 2 a day, but what about 11 liters of water a day?”

You appear fixated with how much water people should drink, bordering on the farcical. 11 litres!
Why stop there?…what would happen if someone drank 20 litres. Hey, what about 50!?

Tell me what would happen?
Perhaps water toxicity.

You said “All a person needs to do is drink 4 liters of water a day and they will be exposed to the same as 1 liter of 4 mg/L of water…
You are being a little cavalier with your math aren’t you!…the last time I looked, 0.7 multiplied by 4 was 2.8.

“Simply too many assumptions for my comfort”

I agree, far too many assumptions, not only for my bladder but for any logical conclusions to be made.

Nevertheless, it appears that on one hand you make definitive statements about fluoride and perceived dangers yet you then proceed to hide behind a veil of ignorance by saying;

“In effect, we are discussion and have taken positions on a subject which we really have incomplete evidence”

You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Most telling is near your conclusion when you say;

“In such debate, it is almost better to not have any research because the focus is on the flaws of the other person’s research”

After my fluoride encrusted jaw dropped, it all slowly became clear… like a Chem Trail dissipating on a clear summer’s day.

Be honest Bill, you really don’t know how the scientific method works do you?

I hope this is not too much of a diversion Ken but if you could please indulge me..

Hi jamesrobertdeal,

You said of Stuart,
“It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”. Name calling shows you are not patient enough to stick to rational discussion and either be convinced or convince someone else.”

If you actually read what Stuart wrote, he did not call any ONE a dickhead.
He was referring to a generic group – those saboteurs of people implementing policies that improve human well being…

But while you are here and that you are ready for rational discussion, I would really appreciate it if you could answer the question I posed to you on Monday…

“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”

If 68 years of experience and the extreme rarity of skeletal fluorosis in 73% fluoridated United States don’t allay your fears about this disorder, that’s your prerogative. The 2006 NRC only stated risk of severe dental fluorosis and bone fractures as its reason to recommend lowering the primary MCL. They deemed the secondary of 2.0 mg/liter to be adequately protective. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter, one third the level deemed safe by the 2006 NRC.

Those facts are certainly ample enough for me to have no concerns about skeletal fluorosis in relation to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

“Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use that they don’t see anyone dropping dead on the sidewalks so therefore fluoridation is safe.”

This is a self-evident strawman.
It’s certainly not a quote from anyone around here.
You made it up all by yourself.
Did it make you feel better?
Shame on you.
Here’s an idea. How about you stick to the real conversation going on around you? Maybe use quotes? Yeah?
Seriously, what is wrong with people like you?

Sounds like the argument fluoridationists use…

No.
This won’t do at all. I’m not a “fluoridationist”.
Nor am I an Evolutionist. Nor a gravityist. Nor a moonlanding-ist.

I’m merely a person that is in sync with the mainstream scientific consensus.
Not much more to it than that.
It’s me and the CDC. Me and NASA. Me and the NIH. Me and the CSIRO etc,etc,etc.
Not just on fluoride, though. Oh no..
On all sorts of things.
You have a problem with my views on fluoride?
Don’t waste your time on the internet.
Enter the scientific arena. Get some work done. Take it up with the global scientific community. Once you win them over, come back and say “hi”.
Otherwise, shut your pie-hole.

It is poor form to call anyone a “dickhead”.

This is what it took to for you to worm your way out of the woodwork and make a comment? How sad. For weeks now, you had a target-rich environment of cranks and loons making all sorts of deperately stupid arguments linking to no-name science denier blogs…and you decide to add your two cents worth bleating about rude names.

(..awkward silence…)

Sad.
Get a life.

I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position on important issues and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.

Let’s test that, shall we?

“I am always most interested in reading anything which would debunk my position that the moon landings never happened and to engage in discussion with those who disagree with me. Because I am always asking my self if I could be wrong.

Both sides (me and my friends on the internet versus NASA and every single scientifc community on the planet) are amazed that the other side could believe such radically different things about the Apollo missions. One way to respond to this is to keep asking questions, keep learning, and keep teaching and hope somehow understanding and maybe agreement can be reached. The other way is to descend into name calling.”

No. That’s just stupid.
I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s just a simple observation.
People living in the 21st century that don’t believe that the moon landings happened are stupid.
We’re just not dealing with the sharpest pencils in the box here.
Dickheads?
Sure. You have to be a dickhead to argue no matter what to support such an untenable position. The arguments that science deniers make are dishonest. They are fallacious. It’s endless quote-mining and anomoly hunting and shifting the burden of proof and an hominem and trolling and conspiracy thinking.
Even (and I kid you not), even when it’s pointed out to them again and again and again that the way they are going about things is fallacious.
When they persist, that makes them dickheads.
Indeed, I’d argue that there’s no more honest description.

Science deniers should not be given any faux respect.
If your position is “X” and that paricular “X” stands in the face of every single relevent scientific community on the planet then it’s one of two things.
Either A:
You’re in line for a Nobel Prize
or B:
You are an idiot that has great difficulty embracing reality and you need to spend a little less time embracing kooky konspiracy theories.

How do you tell the difference, you may ask?
Easy.
Methodology. Methodology. Methodology.

Thanks for your reply Bill
Sorry Ken its just a hypothesis it just seems fair to ask about biochemical pathways given that this is part of the debate, if we are to fully understand how F interacts in the human body we need to understand how it is metabolised not just what it does for teeth – humans are inquisitive especially scientists
Next question for anybody in the studies with high F consumption what is the chemical composition, mix NaF, CaF2, other soluble F or are we assuming that all F is available for absorption???
Regarding water consumption l recommend a look at (or others just use Dr Google)http://waterintakecalculator.com/http://www.ehow.com/how_5868404_calculate-water-consumption-needs.html
You’ll be amazed how much water people need especially in a hot climate and if consider a professional sports person, a labourer who works outside all day I can see how a person could easily get to 8+litres a day
I can think of quiet a few people who would exercise more than this in their normal manual jobs

Ian, where is your inquisitiveness about the chlorine you ingest with every swallow of water?

Consuming 8 liters of water per day would be excessive by any standards. Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior. Any who engage in this behavior must take responsibility themselves to assure that they are not ingesting an excessive amount of chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, or any other water additives if they are concerned with this.

Even your excessive 8 liter per day water will still fall short of the IOM upper level, 10 mg, before adverse effects, however. Eight liters of fluoridated water per day would only mean a total daily intake of 7.5 mg fluoride from all sources.

Sincere folks with a genuine desire in subjecting claims that are paraded as scientific claims frequently don’t realise they (and the debate) are being “gamed”. The “game” is parading posturing that is really personal narcism, right wing Libertarianism parading as liberalism, narrow vested financial interests, free market politics and the denial of cooperative strategies of a non zero sum kind aimed at the general welfare. It is frequently accompanied with accusations in some countries with cries of “nanny state” or “socialism”. Among people who should know better this is nothing to do with an honest misunderstanding of the way things have to be, it is a deliberate ploy to encourage a system, a world view that delivers the welfare that belongs to everyone, to an elite arrogant selfish few. It’s proponents should not be treated politely, they should be given no quarter. Their currency is deliberate persistent misinformation. Their strategy is discernible in Big Tobacco, Climate Change denial and now anti fluoridation. That is why their most outrageous claims are situated in the on-line equivalent of the “gutter press” as I discovered above.

Please stop the personal attacks and stick to the subject. Demeaning comments are not productive. Insinuating that I can’t think and am stupid is not scientific or on topic.

You suggest you (I presume you mean fluoridationists) have no responsibility to ensure fluoridation is safe or provide any research on the safety of fluoridation for the brain. Then who has responsibility? Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?

Public Health professionals and proponents have the responsibility to ensure the use of police powers to give everyone fluoride is not causing harm. They keep claiming safety and expect the patient to provide the research. That is why the FDA CDER was set up by Congress so the manufacturer, not the patient or public, is responsible for claims made, manufacturing, label, branding, etc. The person doing the action has the responsibility for their actions.

Speak up. Do all fluoridationists agree they have no responsibility for scientific evidence on the safety of fluoride to the brain?

Ian,
Your question on chemicals is certainly appropriate. I thought you were asking about other chemicals than fluoride.
The NRC 2006 report and earlier reports deal somewhat with absorption. Medications with fluoride usually do not contribute much fluoride, an estimated 10% of the fluoride stays in the body.

And your comments on the amount of water consumed is hitting at part of my concerns as a nutritionist for total exposure and dentist as dosage.

Mean, average, and median are misleading when we are trying to make the chemical safe for everyone. If we are going to make it safe for 90% or 95% of the public, then we need to say so.

If a person drinks a great deal of water and also takes fluoride medications and swallows toothpaste and drinks tea or wine with higher concentrations of fluoride, those people are at higher risk.

Would you please provide a reference either law or published public health advisory or research or some other document to support your statement,

“Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior. Any who engage in this behavior must take responsibility themselves to assure that they are not ingesting an excessive amount of chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, or any other water additives if they are concerned with this.”

I would disagree. You have suggested that some people drink too much water (8 L/d) and they need to take responsibility for their excessive behavior.

What would your advice be to those people who feel they need more water?

What is the public health position on how much water is safe and how much drinking water is excessive behavior?

Are there exceptions for people like diabetics or lactating mothers or soldiers or laborers? My memory is the army sent out 3 gallons of drinking water for each soldier each day in Iraq. Would you consider the military excessive behavior for drinking water?

“The key problem is that there is a lack of good quality evidence of both effectiveness and harm. This is a point consistently raised in reviews of water fluoridation (McDonagh et al. 2000, NRC 2006, NHMRC 2007, SCHER 2011).”

“Evidence-based public health presents particular problems relating to the nature of the evidence and how this is applied in practice (Dobrow et al. 2004, Petticrew et al. 2004) . . . Medicine focuses on the individual patient. . . public health is not focused on the individual but on populations, and, by its very nature, is a more political process than medicine as it deals with social processes. . . . It is because of the population-wide application of public health interventions that Skarabanek (1994) argued that the link between evidence and public health interventions should be stronger than that for other forms of medical interventions because public health deals with people who are not ‘ill’ nor have they approached a health care practitioner asking for medical assistance.”

The scientific evidence for fluoridation should be stronger. Please provide the “stronger” scientific evidence. Several prospective randomized controlled trials would help. But there is not one.

The last class of my public health master’s degree, the instructor said, “you must promote and do everything your superior tells you to do regardless of the science.” I raised my hand and asked, “does that mean if my boss tells me to promote smoking tobacco I have to promote tobacco smoking?” My instructor paused, considered, and then said, “Yes.”

Whereas a single medical error may cost one or more lives, a public health error may cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars. Yet public health policy is too often without external scientific evidence based review, open dialogue with stake holders’ input, or patient freedom. In the case of fluoridation, the focus is to help the poor, and ironically it is the poor who can least afford the loss of IQ and who are most harmed.

Holtgrave divides public health errors into three types of situations, errors of deliberate commission such as contrary to standards, practices, laws or ethical norms (such as fluoridation); willful omission such as not providing action (label, branding, informed consent for treatments like fluoridation); and complacency such as paying insufficient attention to a disease (or treatment of the disease without approved drug).

Holtgrave suggests, “A common feature in those three categories of errors is an intent to do harm, or at least the lack of caring about fully discharging one’s public health duty to serve the public good.” Holtgrave argues, “that policy makers can indeed commit “errors” and should be held accountable for said errors if the policy makers know that the action they are taking is demonstrably harmful (relative to another policy option) and they have the financial, legal, and human resources to avoid implementing the relatively harmful policy.”

I had a public health dentist tell me, “I don’t care about science. I do whatever I want until a judge tells me otherwise.”

My point is, tradition is very hard to change and my public health profession has really no oversight or scientific training. The CDC dental division is made up to a great degree with military dentists who are accustomed to taking orders and following them. They take their marching orders on fluoridation from the ADA.

No doctor could ethically force the ingestion of even an approved drug (let alone an unapproved drug) on competent adults for a non-contagious non-life threatening disease, without ethical consent from each individual, medicating everyone in an attempt to medicate children while their teeth are developing, with an uncontrolled dosage, based on highly disputed cherry picked low quality scientific evidence, and with the drug readily available off the shelf providing freedom of choice (toothpaste) as an alternative. If a doctor did what public water providers are doing, they would lose their license to practice medicine.

Science is not stagnant, is not set in stone, and is constantly being challenged and changing. History has sometimes not been kind to scientists and public health professionals who have used unapproved drugs for treatments on people without their consent (Nuremberg Trials) or with held treatment or even the information, public health education, of potential treatment from cohorts (Tuskegee). Public water providers must actively educate the public towards health rather than medicate the public towards “health.”

Holtgrave reminds us that, “in public health there is not an analogue to the Hippocratic Oath from medicine (“first of all, do no harm”).” In public health, the standards of performance are ambiguous and the decision makers less clearly identifiable, more distal and more numerous than in clinical medicine. The attitude and culture of the public health profession is omniscient, omnipresent and potestas imperium.

Issues of ethics emerge with value conflicts. Some people value teeth more than brains and have gained enough potestas imperium control to force everyone into submission to their value of mass medication rather than mass education. Even if the masses voted for an illegal act, such as segregation of schools, the vote does not make the act legal. When there are value conflicts, public water providers must provide freedom of choice, do no harm, and obey the law.

The Czech Republic provides freedom for individual choice and does not fluoridate public water. Even without fluoridated water Oganessian (2011) has raised concerns for excess fluoride ingestion from other sources and summarized key considerations for preschool children:
• “During the period when the enamel of permanent teeth is maturing it is vulnerable even to small over-doses of fluoride.”
• “One of the main issues of dental public health is to minimize the risk of fluoride overdose by the fluoride and diet counseling both in individual and community levels.”
• “There is also a bottled table mineral water with a fluoride content exceeding 0.7 ppm, which must be obligatorily labeled as “not suitable for children up to 7 years.”
• “As to other sources of fluorides, there is no fluoridation of drinking water in the Czech Republic, fluoridated toothpastes for children are available country-wide and fluoride tablets are administered rarely.”
• “Children aged 4 to 5 years accidentally swallow 30 to 40% of the tooth paste when cleaning teeth.”

It is time for public health officials and dentists to seriously and calmly review their positions on fluoride ingestion.

Bill you forgot to mention that fluoridated salt is used in the Czech republic
“Salt fluoridation was implemented in the Czech and the Slovak Republics in the mid-nineties. The market share of the
fluoridated domestic salt appears to have reached 35% in the
Czech Republic; it became eventually part of a preventive
strategy comprising school-based dental health education
including topical fluoride.” Edited by THOMASM. MARTHALER
1
and GEORGEW. POLLAK
2
1
Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology
and Cariology, Center for Dentistry, University of Zurich
2
Weinbergstrasse 31, CH-8006 Zurich

Bill what I was trying to get to is how NaCl in the body (not in added salt although this might also have other implications) is migrated between cells, (cell chemistry) but in particular in kidney function..ie as is more reactive does NaF exchange alter the bio activity of NaCl
Also NaF also adds more Na to the diet which for many in western society is already high (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/sodium/)
Both are alkaline metal halogens

Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.

Are you saying that the Royal Society do indeed review the scientific evidence when they make a statement on fluoridation or do you think they just get “marching orders” from someone or some organsation as the CDC do?

Dear Bill,
Hola from Portland, again. Perhaps I missed some earth shattering new, but the last legal case involving a fluoridation suit was judge in favor of the defendant, the Metro Water District of Southern California. (August 9, 2011)
References:
Filing:

Closer to our home, just north in Washington State, you and Mr. Deal are much more familiar with this ruling. Basically, no court of last resort in the United States has ever ruled that fluoridation is forced medication or a drug.

In 2011 Port Angeles, WA and Forks, WA were sued for the umteenth time by opponents to fluoridation like you and Mr. Deal. Here was the final ruling.

Jefferson County Superior Court Judge Craddock Verser dismissed the case Friday on the grounds that fluoride cannot be considered a prescription drug when used in a public water supply.

The two cities, in their motion to dismiss the case, said that designation does not apply to their use of fluoride because the FDA does not regulate public drinking water.

He wrote that the plaintiffs would have to meet two criteria to prove their case: that fluoride is a prescription drug under federal law and that it is listed in the 2009 edition of the Drug Topics Red Book.

“Because the FDA does not regulate public drinking water or drinking water additives, it is impossible for plaintiffs to prove that the first requirement for being a [prescription drug] under Washington law is met,” he said.

I am disappointed that you have inferred that I think you are stupid, I’m sure you can’t read my mind. My posts, yes…but my mind?

My comments are confined ONLY to issues that you comment on or about – which is why I am careful to quote what you actually say and ask you questions when I am unsure of what you mean.

If you extrapolate this to your persona as a whole then I cannot help this, this is your error. I can’t apologise for what I haven’t done.
While we are on the subject, do you have any specific’s you want to discuss or do you just want to blanket me with your inaccurate moral opprobrium?

But here’s another observation.

You often ignore questions
You fabricate statements not said by others (straw men)
and you routinely get things wrong

I don’t want to get in a silly tit for tat but can you please be accurate with what you say?

Steve asked Ian, where is your inquisitiveness about the chlorine you ingest with every swallow of water?
we are in a F debate however you do raise a valid point at Cl is a halogen just like fluoride although not as reactive, however then you would also raise the issue of bromine & Iodine I would suspect total halogen/halide intake may possibly be relevant but I have not seen any mention in this discussion if you have a link I would be interested
Steve Public health initiatives cannot and are not expected to account for all excessive behavior.
I guess that would mean a professional sports person would be at risk as I would agree that they have excessive behavior you know training many hours daily I would still expect any health body would certainly be wise enough to take 99.9+% of populations behaviours into account

It’s Bill and his mates who don’t have the evidence. That’s why they dwell on questionable papers and the minutiae of never ending pompous prevarication. Oh and Chris – they don’t forget crucial details, they suppress them.

I already have. Above. But you didn’t read it. That too is evidence, evidence of your complete insincerity. Your not a scientist. You a contrarian making a living on the lecture circuit preaching to the converted and selling books and pamphlets. Just like your mates at Discovery Institute.

“On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate
independently the scientiﬁc basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of
2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect
children and others from adverse health effects. ”

Also on page 2:

“After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted
since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the
present MCLG of 4 mg/L for ﬂuoride should be lowered. Exposure at the
MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel ﬂuorosis, a condition that is associated with enamel loss and pitting. In addition, the
majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG is not likely to be pro-
tective against bone fractures. ”

The Committee was charged with evaluating the adequacy of the primary and secondary MCLs to be protective of the public. The Committee made a recommendation to lower the primary. It made no recommendation to lower the secondary. Thus, it deemed the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm to be adequately protective of the public. Had it not, it would have recommended lowering, as it did for the primary.

Note that the EPA MCL, MCLG, and SMCL pertain to naturally occurring fluoride and any fluoride contamination through pollution. These 2 ppm and 4 ppm limits are limits on naturally occurring fluoride and pollution. They are not a green light to add fluoride up to 2 ppm and 4 ppm.

The 2006 NRC Report at page xiii clarifies this, saying:

“In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 4 mg/L and a secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water. These exposure values are not recommendations for the artificial fluoridation of drinking water, but are guidelines for areas in the United States that are contaminated or have high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride.”

Naturally occurring calcium fluoride is not a good thing to drink, but it only dissolves up to 8 ppm, and it comes with its own buffering calcium. It is not immediately poisonous like the synthetic fluorides, which contain no buffering calcium or magnesium. It is a gross error to say that artificial fluoridation is just the adjusting of naturally occurring fluoride. This is because the artificial fluorides come with no calcium to buffer them, and they are fully soluble in water. Also the silicofluorides contain lead and leach lead from pipes, something that calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride do not do. Also they contain arsenic, cadmium mercury, lead, and thallium in small amounts.

Next note that the EPA told the NRC not to review fluoride added to drinking water. EPA administrators did not want to know anything bad about fluoridation. EPA told HHS not to discuss artificial water fluoridation in the 2006 NRC Report. The SDWA requires that the EPA get outside review every five years. So in 2003 EPA commissioned the NRC to conduct a very limited evaluation of fluoridation policies.

The EPA twists what NRC says to imply that NRC endorses artificial water fluoridation. The EPA says in its New Fluoride Risk Assessment:

“The NRC 2006 report does not question the beneficial effects for fluoride at levels practiced for fluoridation programs.”

This is a bad faith argument, because the EPA told the NRC not to cover fluoridation programs. The NRC explains:

“Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge. 2006 NRC 1-2.”

On the one hand, EPA, CDC, and HHS were endorsing continued water fluoridation. On the other hand, EPA was telling NRC not to research the subject. And on the other hand the EPA was using NRC’s reduced coverage of water fluoridation in the 2006 NRC Report to imply that the NRC was not critical of water fluoridation.

Either the EPA of the FDA could ban fluoridation. Only the FDA can authorize fluoridation because it is intended to affect health and so meets the federal definition of a drug – in spite of what our stupid Washington Supreme Court had to say.

But the EPA cannot require fluoridation due to direct language in the Safe Drinking Water act. The SDWA specifically prohibits EPA from passing any regulation requiring the addition of any chemical to drinking water for medical purposes. See 42 USC 300g-1(b)(11)[3]:

“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

So EPA instead just recommends fluoridation and passes the buck to NSF to declare consumption of industrial fluorides to be safe. But before EPA administrators passed the buck to NSF, the EPA scientists wrote the guidelines for NSF, which say that 20 tox studies are to be done. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-60-excerpts2.pdf. They are not being done. State laws allow fluoridation only if fluoridation materials “comply” with NSF 60. Because NSF is not doing the tox studies, the materials do not “comply”, and fluoridation with synthetic fluoride is illegal. Another law is ignored.

Bill, my comment on excessive behavior with public health initiatives is my opinion. Readers may take that any way they choose.

Yes, I consider consumption of 3 gallons (11 liters) per day water during war maneuvers to be excessive. You don’t? The term “excessive” is not a judgement as to whether the behavior is positive or negative. Too, you assume that the 3 gallons you state is provided per day to these military personnel is fluoridated. Even if it is, this still only results in 10.26 mg total daily fluoride intake for even the most most extreme of scenarios, and this is only for a short term. The upper limit is chronic average intake of 10 mg. This is clear evidence of the broad range of safety which exists between the optimal level and the upper limit.

Medically compromised individuals and lactating mothers must be attuned to all substances they consume, in accordance with the recommendations of their healthcare providers. This is certainly not limited to fluoride intake.

Ian, the daily upper limit is the average, chronic intake of fluoride. The United States population is 317 million. Even the relatively few numbers of “professional sports persons” for whom you express concern, could consume 2-3 gallons of water per day and be within that upper limit.

I heard once on a discussion on National Radio NZ that the recommended quantity of water, 7 litres was aid representation by bottled water companies. The 7 litres (or whatever the quantity was) was in fact total water needs including water in food, a figure used by US military food planners during second world war. Someone might find the original story and verify that. Anyway the amount became an urban legend encouraging people to swig water all day out of fashionable drink bottles. I think many people used filtered water and I would say the consumption has been quite exaggerated. But that would need verifying. If the amount has been overstated then that would erode the force of the concerns regarding massive water ingestion. Whatever the precise figure I would think excessive water uptake is highly improbable.

You bring up an interesting point with fluoridated salt. France has fluoridated salt and according to a French friend, none of the salt is used in commercial foods and the use is declining.

An obvious advantage to fluoridated salt is freedom of choice.

A far better form of dispensing is to have a person swallow a baby pea size of tooth paste which has a quarter mg of fluoride. Of course the FDA warns not to swallow that much. But fluoride toothpaste is readily available, cheaper than fluoridated water and gives people freedom of choice.

I once watched a documentary on the Six Day war. Israeli soldiers were rationed about 11 (12?) litres of water a day for optimal fighting performance.
In the desert.
Fighting, mind you.
(Granted it’s only a documentary and also you have to rely on my memory.)

The point is that you could drink a lot of water until your bladder screamed for mercy.
Yet fluoridation is not going to be a problem.
Fluoride in tap water is in minute quantities. If you want to do damage to yourself from the fluoride in the water then it’s going to be a superhuman task.For a superhuman bladder.
Anti-fluoridationists are simply taking the piss.

Richard,
You said, “Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.”

I have several serious problems with your comment.

First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both dentistry and public health.

Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.

My request is for you to provide the Royal Societies current scientific review of fluoridation.

On the subject of excessive water consumption last year 2012 an Invercargill woman died from ingesting excessive coke drink, up to 10 litres per day. Autopsy reported cardiac arrhythmia from excessive sodium and caffein. Invercargill fluoridated it’s water supply. No mention of fluoride in the autopsy reported.

Your post quoted me saying:
“Are you suggesting it is the patient’s responsibility to stop the government from forced medication of an unapproved misbranded adulterated illegal drug?”

Christopher, your answer has nothing to do with science or supporting your position but attacking me when you said,

“So much hate
So much rhetoric
So much inaccuracy
So much ideology
So little science”

Instead of trying to put e down as stupid, provide your position and science.

The Congress of the United States of America has charged the FDA CDER with regulation of substances intended to prevent disease. The FDA CDER requires the manufacturer to gain NDA. I posted that earlier.

In contrast, you say it is not you, promoters, in effect the manufacturer’s and promoter’s responsibility to provide the science.

Christopher, my question to you is,

In your opinion, if not the manufacturer of the product, then who’s responsibility is it to ensure the product is safe and effective? Who has jurisdiction? Please provide your evidence without attacking me personally.

“I have several serious problems with your comment.
First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both NASA, the Russian Space Agency and the European Space Agency.
Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.
My request is for you to provide the Royal Societies current scientific review of the moon landings.”

Happy, happy me.
🙂

You say I’m setting up straw men. Well, provide scientific evidence to support your arguments rather than attacking me personally.

Or what?
More strawmen?
Shame on you. Even if you were being attacked personally, it doesn’t justify you creating strawmen.
Grow up.

What can be more basic than mother’s milk? In most samples, no detectible fluoride. Mean of 0.004 ppm in non fluoridated areas, and less than 0.01 ppm in fluoridated areas. Similar to saliva and blood serum.

Formula made with fluoridated water provides the infant with 100 to 250 times more fluoride than mother’s milk.

Please provide your scientific evidence that infants are safe with that amount of fluoride and second, would you consider mother’s milk defective?

But fluoride toothpaste is readily available, cheaper than fluoridated water and gives people freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice.
Who could argue against freedom of choice?
You are it’s fearless defender.
Hmm.

You want people to be able to “make a choice”.
No doubt you want people to “know what the facts are”, right?
Of course you do.
It’s an “open question”.
There are “differing points of view”.
Shouldn’t the American people be allowed to “come to their own conclusion”?
Hmm.
Sounds familiar somehow.

You provided your evidence and I find your approach to be very professional. Thank you.

I understand how you came to the conclusion that the NRC found the SMCL of 2mg/L of fluoride was protective. We agree the NRC said MCLG of 4mg/L was not protective. However, we disagree with the assumption that if NRC found MCLG not protective then they found 2 mg/L was protective. Their silence on SMCL should not be taken as evidence of safety. They requested a new DRA which has been done and you may have read it. Almost 8 years later and the EPA has still not come up with a new MCLG. The new MCLG maybe lower than 2 mg/L. A secondary might be less than 0.7 mg/L. As yet, we don’t know.

In your next response, you find 3 gallons of water excessive. How much water is safe and how much water is excessive. Please provide a number and citation.

Second, you suggest 10 mg/day of fluoride is safe. Please provide your reference and a link if possible to the scientific evidence to support that dosage. What is the date that number was determined? What is the serum and urine fluoride concentration ranges that fluoride dosage produces? And what is the serum fluoride concentration for adverse effects found in the literature? CDC says serum fluoride should be less than 0.02 mg/L. Research is now showing adverse effects at >0.02 mg/L. First those questions and then we can go into the research on optimal and safe serum fluoride concentration.

you said above, “Medically compromised individuals and lactating mothers must be attuned to all substances they consume, in accordance with the recommendations of their healthcare providers. This is certainly not limited to fluoride intake.”

To some degree, I am with you that individuals must be attuned to what they consume. However, at a minimum, when public health interventions may harm subpopulations, we should be even more cautious, judicious, with labels and health education to keep them “attuned.”

As a dentist, I promoted fluoridation and fluoride supplements for about 25 years. Was I attuned? No. To expect mother’s with jobs, toddlers, work, lack of sleep, without transportation and inadequate money to be attuned to complex issues like fluoridation is simply asking too much.

At a minimum, health education must include cautions not to use public water for making infant formula.

First, you (and all of us) tend to look at the mean or median. So my question is, what percentage of the population do you want to protect for safety? The other way to say it, “what percentage of the public can be harmed and fluoridation still be an acceptable public health intervention?”

Second, “What filters remove fluoride from water?” Many are using filters, but which ones remove fluoride?

Swallowing a “baby pea size of toothpaste” does not expose the teeth to a low concentration of fluoride during the day as does fluoridated water. A recommendation for people to swallow a “pea size” of toothpaste with a 1200-1500 times the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water, does not seem to be a responsible alternative to consuming water with a careful dilution of 0.7 ppm fluoride. At less than $1 per person per day for fluoridation, the toothpaste option would certainly not be more cost efficient.

Domestic salt both with added fluoride (at 250 ppm) and without fluoride has been on the market since 1986. It was recommended to avoid the consumption of fluoridated salt if the local drinking water contained more than 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre. The legislation has never been modified since, except for a few developments such as the permission given to school canteens in 1993 to use fluoridated salt, provided canteen managers made sure that the drinking water contained no more than 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per litre. Epidemiological surveys about fluoridated salt in France are few, but they point in the same direction: decrease of DMFT and DMFS values, evident for the period 1986-1993 but minimal from 1993 to 1998. In 1999 and 2002, Service de Santé Publique, U.F.R. d’Odontologie, Université de Montpellier I, France. paul.tramini@wanadoo.fr

Human breast milk contains an insufficient amount of iron for proper development of infants 6 mos and older. Using the content of breast milk to justify opposition to a public health initiative which provides dental decay prevention is a poor argument.

“Breast milk contains very little iron (~0.35 mg/liter). The Institute of Medicine recommends that infants 6-12 months old get 11 mg of iron per day [1]. By this age, most babies’ iron stores have been depleted, so this iron needs to come from complementary foods, in addition to breast milk or formula. If you try to meet your infant’s iron requirement on breast milk alone, she would have to consume between 4 and 13 liters of breast milk per day, depending on your baby’s efficiency of iron absorption from breast milk (estimates range from 15-50% absorption). Most exclusively breastfed babies don’t consume much more than 1 liter of milk per day.”

As far as your demand for scientific proof that fluoride at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not. There is no valid evidence that fluoridation causes any adverse effects for infants, mild dental fluorosis notwithstanding.

As I have said before Bill Baby Formula in NZ has to be fluoride free,by law, so that cuts down the fluoride intake for infants
And it has been proved that the fluoride ‘hit’ from toothpaste only lasts an hour or two at most, so what treatment do the teeth get between brushing, and then that raises the question ,How many people in the demo-graph that need it most, actually brush once a day or even at all. I know that there are families in the north of N.Z that dont have a toothbrush each, and dental hygiene is not top of the shopping list, And you can buy coke for a buck a litre on special

Readers are free to assess for themselves whether or not a consumption of 3 gallons of water per day is excessive. Your question was whether I consider it to be. Again, I do.

The 10 mg upper limit is that which has been established by the Institute of Medicine. Given 68 years of history of water fluoridation with no proven adverse effects, including the extreme rarity of skeletal fluorosis, there is no valid evidence that this determination of upper level is faulty.

Bill: “At a minimum, health education must include cautions not to use public water for making infant formula.”

The CDC and the ADA have both cautioned that for those parents who are concerned with the risk of mild dental fluorosis, the suggestion is to use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most, if not all, of which are manufactured using low fluoride content water.

Again, public health initiatives cannot account for all excesses and all contingencies. Lactating mothers who do not accord a top priority to the substances they ingest, in the best interest of the proper development of their infants, are not a valid reason to deprive an entire population the benefit of water fluoridation.

Regarding toothpaste. I give that as an alternative which is less than $1/day. About 150 pea size amounts in the small Crest fluoride toothpaste tube I used to give to patients. That tube does not cost you $150 to give to your patients. And a large tube has much more and costs about 1% of fluoridated water. And ethics. Don’t forget ethics with freedom of choice.

Of course the quarter mg is not to be swallowed according to the FDA CDER.

Question: Why are you opposed to seeking FDA CDER approval for fluoridation? They have the experts and it would save a great deal of controversy.

And remember, about half of americans drink bottled water.

And remember, about 3 out of 4 have fluoridated water.

So if you really want to give everyone fluoride, then other methods of dispensing would certainly be more cost effective and greater ethics.

It is the responsibility of public health agencies to provide evidence of safety for infants. Certainly it is not the infant’s responsibility to provide you with evidence fluoridated water is not safe.

I don’t understand your logic. Do you really think infants must provide you with research?

The manufacturer has the legal responsibility to ensure their product is safe and effective with proper label, branding, marketing, manufacturing,etc. Not the consumer.

Steve,
As you can tell, I do not blindly believe and have blind trust in public health so called experts who claim things are safe and effective. Too many areas in our profession of dentistry and public health which are no longer considered safe. Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.

First consider the range of total fluoride exposure for a human. We can’t just consider one source, water.

Second, consider each person’s ability to excrete excess. Not all kidneys work the same and diet makes a difference in absorption, ie calcium in the diet.

Third, the best method of evaluating fluoride exposure is with blood serum fluoride concentration. Not an expensive test and should be done regularly.

Fourth, the best studies include serum and urine fluoride concentrations from cohorts.

We know adverse effects happen at very low serum fluoride concentrations, CDC says <0.02 mg/L Some studies are now showing adverse effects even lower. Controls in some studies are at 0.02 mg/L.

It would be reasonable for promoters of fluoridation to do a prospective randomized controlled trial measuring serum fluoride concentrations as the control. At least water districts should start to randomly measure serum fluoride concentrations in their patients.

As far as your demand for scientific proof that fluoride at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.

Let’s test that shall we?
We shall.

“As far as your demand for scientific proof that chlorine at the optimal level is safe for infants, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.”

Hmm. Seems to work nicely.
How about we apply it to something else?

“As far as your demand for scientific proof that “x” is safe, you must first provide valid evidence that there is a problem before demanding proof that there is not.”

Yep. It works. Fluoride in tap water has been around since McCarthy.
All the anti-flouride campaigners have to show for it are some very dodgy websites written in Comic Sans and a tiny band of kooks rehashing John Birch Society Newsletters.
No actual science.

Philosophically probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent. That still does not stop us from being very effective in using that imperfect knowledge. It is not in the nature of humans to sop it on their buts and do nothing just because they might be wrong.

As you say we usually don’t know what we a wrong about – however, we can develop levels of confidence sufficient to use what we know. And it is really naive to suggest we do nothing just in case we might be wrong.

Again, swallowing a pea sized dolluo of toothpaste does not provide the consistent exposure of the teeth to a low concentration of fluoridation all during the day. Fluoridation costs less than $1 per person per YEAR. According to your figures, your alternative is 365 X the cost of fluoridation, with far less benefit.

There is no requirement nor is there any need for FDA approval of optimal level fluoride added to water. It is simply a mineral identical to that mineral which has existed in water since the beginning of time. Water often has in excess of the optimal level of fluoride “naturally”. It is ludicrous to demand rigid FDA testing of this mineral. Thus is the reason it is under the control of the EPA and not the FDA. Why are you not demanding FDA CDER testing of chlorine additives to water?

I provided a reference for iron requirements of infants in my previous comment. The point is that your use of fluoride content of human breast milk as an argument against fluoridation has no validity. Human breast milk is deficient in iron. Are we to assume that anemia of developing children is what nature intended, and thus withhold iron supplementation?

Your are demanding proof of a negative, i.e. “I think there could be a problem, therefore prove that there isn’t”. This would be an endless process and is invalid. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effects of fluoridation with infants. It is impossible to prove every conceivable, unsubstantiated contingency that anyone, anywhere can put forth. Valid evidence that a problem exists must be provided before credibly demanding proof that it does not.

The cautions about powdered infant formula, fluoridated water , and mild dental fluorosis have been made by the CDC and the ADA. If you feel these cautions have not been made sufficiently known to the populace, that is a reason to admonish powdered formula manufacturers to better do their job, not a reason to deprive an entire population the benefit of the public health initiative of water fluoridation.

Nothing wrong with questioning public health or any other authority. The problem with most fluoridation opponents is that in the place of knowledgeable, recognized authoritative sources of information on fluoridation, they substitute the filtered and edited information of “fluoridealert.org” and other antifluoridationist websites maintained by personnel unqualified to properly assess validity of scientific information. Intelligent people should not blindly follow anyone, but they should rely upon reliable, accurate, and primary sources of information on which to base their opinions.

The EPA primary and secondary MCLs are maximum allowable levels of fluoride in public water systems. It makes no difference what the source of the fluoride. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. I am aware of no entities that seek to add fluoride up to 4 ppm because the EPA MCL is at that level.

Yes, your “Scientific Consultant” Sauerhaber attempts to make the argument about “buffering” of CaF, but it is a moot point. First, there is no such thing as “artificial fluoride”. Fluoride ions are identical regardless of whether they are released by CaF or HFA. You, yourself, have stated here that CAF dissolves as much as 8 ppm. Only enough HFA is added to systems which will increase the concentration of fluoride ions to 0.7 ppm. Whether those fluoride ions come from the dissolved CaF, from NaF, or from HFA makes no difference. They are identical.

I’ve already addressed your attempted argument about lead in answer to your comment in another section. Urbansky and Schock put that issue to rest.

Your opinions on what you think the EPA “twists”, does or does not do, your personal opinion that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a “drug”, and that our “Washington Supreme Court” is “stupid” because it won’t rule the way you want……are all irrelevant, as are your cites to your own, biased website. I’ve already addressed, with references, your erroneous argument that NSF Standard 60 requirements are not being met. You are certainly free to argue that in court if you choose, but I don’t much like your chances there.

The SDWA prohibits federal mandating of fluoridation. It does not prohibit state or local mandates. State and local are the levels at which fluoridation decisions are made, not at the federal level.

I’m just curious….are these arguments those that you would seriously attempt to make in court?

Bill “Not my job to, I trust the Royal Society, since its members included Sir Issac Newton, Charles Robert Darwin, Sir Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Jenner, and all that, could go on – for pages even.”

I have several serious problems with your comment.

First, when it comes to science, I avoid “trust.” Too many problems in both dentistry and public health.

Second, when it comes to controversial scientific issues trust is simply bad science and ethics. You are now trusting a bunch of dead scientists. Science is not stagnant and those scientists would be shocked to think anyone would simply trust their work and not look deeper into the challenges of science.

I didn’t say anything about trusting dead scientists on this issue. I thought it obvious why I supplied the names of some illustrious members of the Royal Society.

It was illustrative of the caliber of the membership of the Society.

Arguably, in fact strongly arguably, the finest scientific minds on planet Earth. Not just anybody is admitted to the Royal Society. And to be a Fellow you have to have achieved something. Something significant.

Spokespeople for The Royal Society are, I assume, fully cognisant with its standing and wouldn’t just issue any old opinion on behalf of the society. They’d take any such task seriously. Truly. They’d use sources that can be trusted to provide the best possible information. The same applies for the Surgeon General in the USA when that office issues a position statement.

In NZ we have the Royal Society of New Zealand, established in the 19th Century, modeled on and linked to The Royal Society (London), the UK’s national academy of science.

You don’t trust the opinions of such bodies.

Well, that’s not surprising.
It’s to be expected. But it doesn’t carry much weight.

It’s you versus the world’s scientific community.

If your position is correct, the balance of scientific data and opinion will shift to reflect your position.

But essentially, you are currently claiming the scientific community is incompetent or mendacious in willfully distorting the state of the science.

Please take this on board:

Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.

You hinted at your take on reality with assertion that the CDC takes marching orders from ADA.

You can’t win that way.

The modern scientific arena is designed to eradicate the possibility of the science taking “marching orders’ from anybody.

The motto Implies that it is better to put weight on experiment and evidence over assertion but it’s worth observing that “one” is also singular. Modern scientific processes allow for the development of a consensus opinion on the state of many scientific subjects.

Chris, Evidence (and awareness) of dodgy premises is suggested/indicated by a plethora (good word that) of even more questionable and improbable subsidiary hypotheses. The Pre Copernicans called it “epi-cycling”. Stu.

I would be more concerned with the cynical marketing of infant formula in poor communities that don’t even have clean water let alone the resources or understanding to sterilise bottles. Nancy Schepper- Hughes study of Brazilian shanty towns attributed a 40% infant mortality rate ( google it). If your keen on sleepless night read that.

But Steve fluoride remembers!
Don’t forget BO posts on homeopathy sites. There’s your psychological motivation. If it is intrinsically “evil” them it cannot be tolerated to any degree. Salem Massachusetts and all that.

Ken,
You asked, “Where did you get that 50% from Bill?” Excellent question.

About 50 posts back it was brought up here as a ball park number. I believe it was NRC 2006, Kathleen Thiessen a member of the committee, who did one of the best jobs as of that date on total exposure. Obviously there is a tremendous variation between individuals, but for most, based on my memory, between 40% to 70% of total exposure comes from water. The 50% number is easy for approximation. Obviously wide individual variations.

The increase in total exposure is one of my biggest concerns. Note the increase in dental fluorosis. And further, individual fluoridated water consumption is down, but dental fluorosis increases. Why? Other sources are providing more fluoride. And some of those other sources are rather important, such as toothpaste, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, etc. But as long as many are ingesting too much fluoride from water, these other uses of fluoride must be more closely controlled to avoid excess exposure.

Ken, you further raised a very important point. “Philosophically probably everything we know is “wrong” to some extent. . . . As you say we usually don’t know what we a wrong about – however, we can develop levels of confidence sufficient to use what we know. And it is really naive to suggest we do nothing just in case we might be wrong.”

I fully agree with your balanced public health reasoned philosophy. And when we find something is “wrong” to some extent for some high risk individuals, would it not be best to at least put a notice on the package of caution?

I agree, everything has risk and we should not sit by and do nothing in the face of highly contagious lethal diseases. Dental caries is not highly contagious or lethal.

What happens when public health officials have their reputations on the line and have to promote something which later is seen to be wrong? The theory becomes locked in concrete. Note the Tuskegee experiment. 30 years before it was stopped, treatments were known, yet the US Public Health Services and CDC continued the barbaric experiment for decades, leaving men, women and children to become infected and sick and die. Oh, yes, for the greater good some are sacrificed. The experiment was started just before fluoridation.

Total exposure and the variation of fluoride ingestion from all sources is the main reason I am pushing hard for studies, like those mostly done in China, India and other countries, where serum and urine fluoride are measured. Estimates based on assumptions is not good scientific measurements. We need and can measure individual serum fluoride.

The main issues which changed my mind on fluoridation were:

A. Total exposure is increasing. More and more fluoride is being used in other places increasing total exposure. Who reviews total exposure from all sources and starts to reduce excess exposure? No one. Governments are fragmented with no one looking at the big picture. The suggestion of possibly lowering concentration of fluoride in water to 0.7 ppm, is in part recognition that total exposure is constantly increasing. Most logical to reduce fluoride in water because other sources of fluoride have additional benefits, such as toothpaste, pesticides, medications, post-harvest fumigants, lubricants, teflon, freon, clothes, Scotchguard, etc. etc. When fluoridation started, no increase in dental fluorosis was expected. Then they said 10% increase. Then they said 20% increase. Now we have 41% of children with dental fluorosis. Do we want 100% to have dental fluorosis?

B. Benefit of fluoridation. Without one single prospective RCT, which could be done, we are left with lower quality studies. I wish I could post graphs here so you could see the trends. Countries with our without fluoridated water or/and fluoridated salt all have similar low levels of dental caries. Same for states and counties. No common cause variation with fluoridation. No public health benefit can be seen.
However, I personally was 100% convinced I could see the benefit of fluoride in my patients. Teeth look harder, shinier. So it was a struggle to accept and understand that fluoridation of water no longer provided dental health benefit, certainly little or no life time dental health benefit. Some lowering of caries if confounding problems are ignored. Not a lowering of dental expenses, not fewer dentists in fluoridated communities, no evidence at the community wide level of benefit. Forgot who said, “the success of a public health measure must be measured in the community at large.”

C. Harm from excess fluoride ingestion. There is not dispute, too much fluoride increases health risks.

D. Ethics. Is giving everyone fluoride, even when they are highly chemically sensitive to fluoride or ingesting too much from other sources, when other options are available, ethically reasonable?

For me, brains are more important than teeth. I can fix teeth, no one can fix IQ.

I have to work this week and will not have time to post much. Please provide a link or name of scientific paper on the fluoridation of water which is the scientific foundation for the Royal Societies position on fluoridation.

It will take me time to review their supporting documentation, but well worth the time if you so recommend.

Bill, this discussion is wondering and people are loading track. When I asked about the 50% I was referring to you claim “Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.”

My comment was philosophical and really had nothing to do with with what you have in your reply. Except, of course, that anti-fluoride activists are find of spouting things we were supposed have got wrong in the past to “prove” science is wrong about fluoride.

I know it is extremely naive but it is the sort of “folk wisdom” we often get from anti-science people.

Yes Ken. That hoary old argument about past errors is frequently deployed when criticism must be resisted at all costs. This is delving into Philosophy of Science 301 but modern scientific realism distinguishes between (a) reality and, (b) knowledge claims about it. The later endorses fallibalism. A knowledge claim must be consistent, explain the phenomenon, accurately predict and not beg any questions.
Accordingly science considers the weight of evidence from a plurality of perspectives and disciplines. AGW is a good example. The history of science is replete with theories involving extended causal chains that accurately predict and achieve outcomes. Refinements of course are likely often due to technological developments and more precise measurements. Notoriously people who have an a’priori principle to defend at all costs always resort to overblown pronouncements on doubt and uncertainty.

That paper describes chemical calculations that attempt to discredit the studies of Masters and Coplan, but the calculations merely determine the concentrations of lead and silicate and fluoride that would need to exist in order to cause lead complexes or precipitates to form. This of course is interesting but please understand that lead complexes are not necessary to form in order for flurosilicic acid materials to leach lead.

Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.

Lead based plumbing typically has lead salts on surfaces that dissolve in the presence of acids. Some strong acids do not dissolve lead well.

Silicic acid, although a weak acid, dissolves lead. It has a high dissociation constant, meaning that it takes a great amount of alkalinizer to neutralize it. The amount of alkalizer which neutralizes fluorosilicic acid is not sufficient to neutralize silicic acid.

So silicic acid at neutral pH will displace lead from most of these salts, including lead bisulfate, lead biphosphate, and lead bicarbonate. The products are lead ion and silicate ions.

Of course added flurosilicic acid levels are not high enough to produce lead silicate precipitates, but so what? The point is that silicic acid can dissolve lead form lead salts and this is the most plausible mechanism that explains the detailed studies of Masters and Coplan indicating increase in lead ion levels in water and in blood of consumers after fluorosilicic acid treatment.

***
Urbansky was wrong. That is clear. Read more about the FACT that lead concentrations, both lead concentrations in water and in blood – whatever the mechanism – is higher when water is fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/lead.

The fluoridationists lose on this argument, so they have to take the backup position that the increase in lead caused by fluorosilicic acid is not enough to worry about. In Everett 10% of homes have up to around 50 ppb lead in first draw water. When Tacoma stopped fluoridating because of a water shortage, lead levels dropped almost in half. They went back up when fluoridation was restarted. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/tacoma.

You have to stop ignoring the science which would show fluoridation as harmful to health.

You have to find your way out of the maze and quit blocking the exits with journal articles which do not address the right issue.

James, I find Sauerheber’s comments on the breakdown products of fluorosilicic acid naive. Silicic acid would only have transitory existence at neutral pHs and olimerisation processes lead to polymerisation and eventually precipitation of silica. His comments smack of an attempt to use simplified chemistry to justify a claim which has actually been shown wrong.

I am not going to get into all the issues around this – my intention was just to point out that arguments relying on the persistence of a monomeric silicic acid just do not correspond to the real world where polymerisation processes occur at neutral pHs. Hopefully I have already corrected my typos.

Jamesrobertdeal.
“Will water fluoridation result in pipe corrosion or increased lead in drinking water?
Water fluoridation will not increase water corrosion or cause lead to leach (dissolve) from pipes and household plumbing fixtures. Although lead in public drinking water is typically found to be very low or is below laboratory detection, there are locations where old lead pipes, solder, or plumbing fixtures in old homes may experience leaching of lead into water. This is principally a problem in some older homes because newer homes have been constructed in accordance with new plumbing standards that prohibit the use of lead in plumbing pipes and fixtures. Ask your local water utility system if there have been problems with higher lead levels in water from older homes in your community. Claims by some that fluoride might result in increased lead leaching from pipes and fixtures has not been substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”

Principally because the fluoride is in ionic form particularly at the approved concentrations.

But if you are desperate to make a point in spite of the laws of chemistry you will identify lead in some domestic water somewhere and attribute it to fluoride. Women have been burned at the stake or stoned to death on that sort of reasoning, even in contemporary times.

NSF says some batches when diluted produce drinking water contain up to 1.1 ppb after dilution. Are you ready to certify that this is safe?

A separate issue is the lead leached from plumbing. That is in addition to the lead from the scrubber liquor. You seem to be okay if people living in older houses get lead poisoned. Only a few will be poisoned, and they are poor.

You say newer homes do not have lead plumbing and so are not at risk. Not necessarily, because brass in new faucets is typically 8% lead – except in California – and copper pipes are often welded together with lead-copper solder..

Sorry, I have reposted, but it doesn’t go to the document when I click on the link that I have in my file. But I can give Ian the final conclusion:
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiffs wish, they may file an amended complaint within fourteen days after this order is electronically docketed. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 10, 2012
Honorable Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge

And Bill, you might note that Judge Sammartino is a United States District Judge. Wouldn’t you agree this ruling involves Federal jurisdiction?
(Bill says, “You have taken those court cases out of context”. I ask, What does out of context mean?)

From the American Dental Association’s Fluoridation Facts, page 47:
QUESTION 51.
Has the legality of water fluoridation been upheld by the courts?
Answer.
yes. Fluoridation has been thoroughly tested in the United States’ court system, and found to be a proper means of furthering public health and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be
unlawful. Moreover, fluoridation has been clearly held not to be an unconstitutional invasion of religious freedom or other individual rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. And while cases decided primarily on procedural grounds have been won and lost by both pro and anti fluoridation interests, to ADA’s knowledge no final ruling in any of those cases has found fluoridation to be anything but safe and effective.

“No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful.
The highest courts of more than a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.”
325
Fact.
During the last sixty years, the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems. Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.
324
In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s mandatory fluoridation law, culminating 16 years of court action at a variety of judicial levels.
326
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases thirteen times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.
325
It has been the position of the American courts that a significant government interest in the health and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.
333
Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation
ordinances are a deprivation of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
325,327
In reviewing the legal aspects of fluoridation, the courts have dealt with this concern by ruling that: (1) fluoride is a nutrient, not a medication, and is present naturally in the environment; (2) no one is forced to drink fluoridated water as alternative sources are available; and (3) in cases where a person believes that fluoridation interferes with religious beliefs, there is a difference between the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to practice beliefs, which may be restricted in the public’s interest.
328,329

James.
I’m not endorsing anything (except fluoride at appropriate concentrations). I am simply quoting the relevant authorities. I haven’t the time resources or expertise to personally check every possible environmental threat to my well being. Society would grind to a halt if that was necessary. The overwhelming majority of scientists and public servants are not hell bent on inflicting harm. It sometimes happens out of ignorance or carelessness. The problems in most societies have nothing to do with fluoridated water in fact it is plausible it is a sign of a caring community but not of course if you think the world is continually threatened by evil agencies.
Most of the problems from lead exposure among the general population came from motor vehicle exhaust ( leaded petrol) and lead based paint. .45ppm hardly constitutes a problem (according to the EPA). There are plenty of people in the US who want to discredit them of course. The persistence of lead in the environment stems from historical ignorance. Such things cannot be rectified overnight. There is probably more lead in your garden than in your drinking water.

James Robert Deal – I don’t propose approving your last comment. It is simply the article you have posted on your own web site titled The Fluoridationists.

This is not a good faith contribution to the discussion here, but an attempt to discredit the discussion. Anyone interested can read the article on your web site and comment on it there. Discussion of it here would just be as diversion.

James. Just because I don’t read the journal articles you recommend doesn’t mean I don’t read journal articles. I restrict my reading to official sites and peer reviewed material that acknowledges the well established laws of chemistry. I also have more faith in studies on local adjacent populations that have much in common bar the variable under study. The US and China being heavily industrialised nations have many sources of genuinely toxic contaminants. Fluoride should be the least of your worries.

“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb”

This is a real question. Seriously. And it goes to the heart of why many people can and do abdicate their resources (or crudely put, invest their “trust”) with the scientific community instead of a fringe minority.
Some of us have got to work you know…

This is a question which you haven’t the courtesy to reply to. It is a variation of Richard’s timeless question;

“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”

“Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.”

Elegant.

No one person has even attempted to answer it.

(51) I will invite you again to answer it. And Bill.
And any person out there who supports the anti fluoridation stance.

My attempt was not to try and make you feel like a clown.
You, like Bill, choose not to answer simple and clear questions.
Instead, you ignore them, and deflect the issue by having a self imposed pity party.

Christopher. I’m flattered to find myself pilloried in the same blog. That’s alright.
I content myself by reminding my self of the instructive legacy of Charles Dawson (Piltdown hoaxer) and Sir Richard Owen, the supreme egoist and plagiarist who “lied for God”. To give our friends their due, they are probably sincere. Sincerely promoting a questionable ethical principle masquerading as questionable science.

Christopher on Mr Deals site is the following beauty that links fluoride with Sarin nerve gas. Is this tenuous “guilt by association” thesis sincere or a cynical move to sell the water filters and books he lists?

“So in the West, we can drink it, bathe in it, brush our teeth with it, be told to take it for our health, we can spray it on our growing food, incorporate it in to building materials, paint in on wooden doors, window frames, furniture – in Syria it is “poison gas” and “nerve gas.””

Christopher asks:
“This is a question which you haven’t the courtesy to reply to. It is a variation of Richard’s timeless question;

“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”

“Until you can come up with a credible mechanism for the failure of the scientific consensus nobody with any sense is going to accept your word over the position generated by the scientific consensus and its representative organisations.”

Dear Christopher,

I think I have covered this. Agencies got set up with all good intentions. But big corporations wanted to be let off easy, and so they went to work through lobbyists and donations to politicians and got “their people” appointed to the agencies, such as Michael Taylor, Mr. Monsanto, heading up the FDA branch that approves GMO crops and food. In the EPA there is a split between EPA administrators and EPA scientists. The scientists oppose fluoridation and even sued the administrators. The CDC is split too. Fluoridation policy is run out of one office made up of a bunch of administrative dentists while the rest of the CDC looks the other way. The CDC scientists post articles which admit that 41% of the kids have some degree of fluorosis, with 12.% of it being noticeable and embarrassing. The CDC scientists post articles which say that the effect of fluoridation is primarily topical and not systemic and that the effect is post-eruption of the teeth, which means that it does not help to give fluoride to kids. Yet CDC administrators still promote fluoridation.

And you have the EPA administrators setting up the NSF and offloading fluoridation approval to NSF while the EPA scientists wrote the NSF 60 requirements that fluoridation materials to be approved go through 20 tox studies, which they haven’t, which makes all fluoridation materials non- compliant with NSF 60.

Like everything in our country there is political division in the agencies just as in Congress. Big corporations do not want to lose their cash flow and so they hire the lobbyists and fund the politicians.

So that is the mechanism. You should not be so trusting of our agencies. I would say one of the mechanisms that allows fluoridationists to remain trapped in their maze is that the exits from the maze are blocked. One of the blocking mechanisms is the belief that we should trust our agency heads and that if fluoridation were not good it would have been halted.

It was as scam from the beginning. It was a profitable scam, and so FDA and EPA never developed the will to stop it.

Cargill and Mosaic donate heavily to medical and dental schools, which follow the pro-fluoridation line.

Vaccination is similar to fluoridation in that it has been turned into a giant cash flow engine for big companies. They won complete immunity from liability. So they crank out new vaccines without full safety testing. And kids have serious reactions. The Vaccine Court has paid out $2 billion to victims, and most victims get turned away.

The flu vaccine is only around 1% effective against the current strains of flu.

Most of the kids who came down with whooping cough last year had already been fully vaccinated against it.

Giving newborn babies the hepatitis B vaccine is truly bizzare, as it is a disease spread typically through sharing needles to mainline illegal drugs.

I question giving immunity from liability to the vaccine manufacturers. This immunity has made them reckless. Manufacturers do not have to run the same extensive studies they do for other drugs – because their liability is limited through a no-fault insurance and compensation system.

There are children who have reactions to vaccines, and if they are, they cannot in most cases sue in regular courts. They must file a claim with the Vaccine Court, which has paid out some $2 billion during its existence.

But the Vaccine Court does not fairly compensate those harmed. There is no jury. Those who receive compensation must often agree to keep silent about the settlement. Appeal to regular courts is difficult and rare.
We are giving children 45 vaccinations before they go to school. My concern is about too many insufficiently tested vaccines too soon, before the child immune system is developed.

Like fluoridation, vaccination has become an industry which has developed a large cash flow and large profits. Once that happens our regulatory agencies receive pressure to accommodate such profitable schemes.

Nevertheless, vaccination is off topic for this discussion. Your bringing it up is a smear attempt because you and a lot of people totally trust their agencies and the big corporations they shill for and have absolute faith in all vaccinations.

The validity of my arguments regarding fluoridation should not be tested by what I post regarding vaccination.

Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.

You are way out of touch if you don’t realize the overwhelming problem we have in this country with untreated dental disease. Dental caries most certainly can and has been lethal. Diamonte Driver in 2007? Life-threatening infection from untreated dental decay is rampant. To attempt to trivialize this problem is to add to it.

Sorry, but I’ll take the findings of peer-reviewed scientific study by Urbansky and Schock over the opinion of your assumedly paid “Scientific Consultant” Richard Sauerhaber who cites your “fluoride-class-action” website as his support.

“Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(I1) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”

.” . . Recent reports [Masters and Coplan] that purport to link cer­tain water fluoridating agents, such as fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate, to human lead uptake are inconsistent with accepted scientific knowledge. The authors of those reports fail to identify or account for these inconsistencies, and mainly argue on the basis of speculation stated without proof as fact. The sampling scheme employed in the studies is entirely unrelated to any credible statistically-based study design to identify drinking water lead and fluo­ ride exposure as a significant source of blood lead in the individuals. The authors use aggregated data unrelated in space and time and then attempt to selectively apply gross statistical techniques that do not include any of thousands of other possible water quality or exposure variables which could show simi­lar levels of correlation utterly by accident.”

Obviously you don’t understand that NSF Standard 60 certification begins at the tap, as this the water which will be ingested. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant, including lead, in water from the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements.

It is comical that you claim the CDC to be wrong while citing only your “fluoride-class-action Scientific Consultant”, Richard Sauerhaber, as your only support.

Obviously you don’t understand that NSF Standard 60 certification begins at the tap, as this the water which will be ingested. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant, including lead, in water from the tap exceed 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets Standard 60 certification requirements.

Response:
I do understand NSF 60. In addition to the 10% margin requirement, NSF 60 requires that 20 tox studies be done. They are not being done. Thus the NSF 60 stamp on certificates of analysis are fraudulent. Using the EPA MCL’s instead of tox studies is inappropriate because MCLs are not authorizations to add any contaminant to water. They are requirements that contaminants be removed if they exceed the MCL. There is nothing comical about this fraudulent consumer protection act violation.

“In your opinion, if not the manufacturer of the product, then who’s responsibility is it to ensure the product is safe and effective? Who has jurisdiction? Please provide your evidence without attacking me personally.”

I don’t believe that municipal town water could be fairly called a “product”.

However, where I live in Christchurch New Zealand, The Ministry of Health, through the provision of standards ensures that an appropriate infrastructure is present to support the provision of clean and safe drinking-water to communities. This is enforced through Health (Drinking-Water) Amendment Act 2007.

In addition and probably more relevant to the discussion here, there are three organisations that are involved with the provision of safe drinking-water to any particular community, one at the local level, one regional and one at the National level.

JD: “Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.”

JJ: Question #1: Who has measured silicic acid at the tap? The CDC National Fluoridation Engineer, Kip Duchon, like his predecessors, state that none of the hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) remains intact at the tap. HFSA dissociates into fluoride ion, silica, and hydrogen ion. He also states that you can not measure something that doesn’t exist at the tap. Please provide the literature that clearly demonstrates silicic acid is present at the tap.

1. NSF Standard 60 language is clear. The standard states that if an EPA MCL exists for a contaminant, then toxicological tests are not required:

Fluoride
“As noted above, NSF/ANSI Standard 60 requires, when available, that the US EPA MCL be used to determine the acceptable level for a chemical of interest. The EPA MCL for fluoride ion in water is 4 mg/L.”

2. Additionally, NSF Standard 60 addresses your previous post:
JD: “Fluorosilicic acid breaks down and one of the breakdown products is silicic acid, which is an intact acid molecule at the typical pH of drinking water.”

Silicate
“Fluorosilicates do not require a toxicological assessment specifically for the fluorosilicate ion, because measurable levels of this ion do not exist in potable water at the fluoride concentrations and pH levels typical of public drinking water.”

Your argument against NSF Standard 60 isn’t holding water. The most recent example of this was in Clarksburg, West Virginia, where you unsuccessfully attempted to convince their Water Board to stop using HFSA as it was against West Virginia State Law. The Water Board unanimously tabled your request:

Let me once again attempt to enlighten you on Standard 60. This Standard only applies to water from the tap. Presumedly the “tox studies” to which you refer would be in regard to HFA. However, HFA does not exist at the tap, thus is not subject to tox testing requirements. The trace levels of contaminants easily fall short of the NSF certification maximum of 10% EPA MCL. So, unless you are demanding tox studies be done on fluoride ions which are identical to those already existing in water, there is nothing to test.

“More than 40 states have laws or regula­tions requiring product compliance with Standard 60. NSF tests the fluoride chemicals for the 11 regulated metal compounds that have an EPA MCL. In order for a product [for example, fluorosilicic acid to meet certification standards, regulated metal contaminants must be present at the tap [in the home] at a con­centration of less than ten percent of the MCL when added to drinking water at the recommended maxi­mum use level. The EPA has not set any MCL for the silicates as there is no known health concerns, but Standard 60 has a Maximum Allowable Level (MAL) of 16 mg/L for sodium silicates as corrosion control agents primarily for turbidity reasons. NSF tests have shown the silicates in the water samples from public water systems to be well below these levels.”

—-Reeves TG. Current technology on the engineering aspects of water fluoridation. Paper presented at National Fluoridation Summit, September 8, 2000 Sacramento, CA.

“Instead of trying to put e down as stupid, provide your position and science.”

My position is that I believe 0.7ppm concentration of F in municipal town water supplies reduce the incidence of dental caries among the population. At these levels, it is safe and causes no harm to the community.

As to your request to provide science, I think you need to be more specific; what do you mean here?

But just to kick things off, how about we jump right into a subject.
It has to do with some claims that YOU have recently made.

You said;

“Plotting the 50 US states on the percent of whole state population fluoridated and mental retardation reported in 1992.

As the percent of the populations on fluoridated water increases a tripling of mental retardation is found.

Consistent with half a standard deviation drop in IQ, about 8 IQ points and consistent with Choi’ study from Harvard.”

I don’t understand your sentence construction, and therefore what you are saying, let alone meaning!

Are you relying on the Choi study from Harvard to support your apparent belief that fluoride triples, in your words, mental retardation?

Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.

Smell it.
Take a deep whiff.

You don’t oppose all vaccines?
Really?
Ok.
Name all the vaccines you oppose because “they have not been fully tested for safety” . Spell them out nice and clear.
Name them.
All of them.
Give us the list.

Now juxtapose that with the vaccines you are happy with because they’ve been “fully tested for safety”.
Name them.
Give us that list too.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.

His methodology is somehow…strangely familiar.
I suppose I could go to “X” blog and get my information on science from from some no-name blog hosted by some guy in their parent’s basement.
I could.
That would be stupid though.

Fortunately, I have a certain minimum standard on where I get my science information on any scientific top.
I don’t mess with the wannabees. I just go straight to the top.

So, for example, if I wanted to find out about smoking and if it was dangerous or not…I’d check out the Surgeon General and every single medical community on the planet.
It would be strange not to.

As a methodologies go, it’s kickass. It works really well for for all sorts of scientific issues.
Test it for yourself.

The validity of my arguments regarding fluoridation should not be tested by what I post regarding vaccination.

No, it really should be tested.
It’s about methodology. Look it up. The same methodology that would allow a person to prop up their own biases and preconceptions so that they could deny the scientific consensus on one issue is…perfect…for any other issue.
It’s the same playbook.

Not happy with evolution? Why look! Here’s a blog. It tells you what you want to hear.
Not happy with HIV being linked to AIDS?
Why look! Here’s a blog. It tells you what you want to hear.
Same diff for all the rest.
If your methodogy is essentially the same as nutjob “X” for some other denialist thing, then you need to back up and reconsider your position.

Yet look deeper at that blog that you found. It’s doesn’t matter which one. Strip away the identifying labels and they all blend seemlessly into one other.
It’s all Galileo Gambits and quote-mining and promoting isolated contrarians with some Phd or other and book promotions and conspiracy thinking all wrapped up in the cloak of the stalwart crusader who refuses to let go of the TROOTH in the face of “them”. It’s set up to make you feel that you have inside knowledge. You see it. You understand it all better than they do…and one day, one fine day…you’ll show ’em. History will prove you right. Any day now. Very soon. Just you wait! They’ll see.

No. It’s not happening.
There are two ways to challenge the scientific consensus.
One way gets you a Nobel Prize.
The other way leads you to a blog peddling a book.

Hi jamesrobertdeal
Thank you for your reply
You did not give me a scientific mechanism. You gave me a (conspiracy) theory.
Don’t take this in a pejorative way – conspiracies do occur – but I would hazard to guess just not as often as you like to think.
You gave me a long history peppered with many unsubstantiated facts (which I do not know whether true or not).
Could you please distil it down into a short few pithy sentences, omitting irrelevant details? – parsimony is key to any mechanism, especially on the scale that you are operating.
However, one glaring problem that I see is you centre your theory on the USA.
I understand you live there, however how do you account for pro-fluoridation positions held in other countries, for example NZ?

(after loads of wriggling as to his opposition yet non-opposition to vaccination)

Final: I do not oppose all vaccinations. I oppose vaccines which have not been fully tested for safety. The same applies to fluoridation.

Voila, both topics neatly juxtaposed by Mr deal in the same paragraph.
Which of course underscores the relevance of noting Mr Deal’s role in advocating against the mainstream medical position on vaccination.

It’s all science denial. The nay-saying of the scientific and medical consensus. Anti-fluoridation, anti-vaccination, HIV-denial.

Ken, You said,
“Bill, this discussion is wondering and people are loading track. When I asked about the 50% I was referring to you claim “Remember, 50% of what we know is wrong. We just don’t know which 50%.””

Sorry, I misunderstood which 50% you were talking about. The 50% is a phrase to indicate that we must never assume what we know and what we are doing is actually correct. Perhaps another way of saying, “science is not stagnant.” For example, I no longer use about 90% of the dental materials I used in school. Constant change, constant improvements.

You also said,
“I know it is extremely naive but it is the sort of “folk wisdom” we often get from anti-science people.”

Who are the anti-science people you are referring to? Fluoridation is “folk wisdom” “tradition” “myth” “government policy without oversight” and FDA CDER calls it an “unapproved, misbranded, adulterated and illegal drug” which for political reasons they are deferring regulatory action.

Hi Bill, (and ANY other anti-fluoridationist)
Hi Bill, (and ANY other anti-fluoridationist)

On the topic of “Science”

I would appreciate your take on this and ANY other anti- fluoridationist)

This is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.

“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”

Well, what about this study….

“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”

“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”

On the topic of “Science”

I would appreciate your take on this and ANY other anti- fluoridationist)

This is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.

“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”

Well, what about this study….

“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”

“How and why do all the health and scientific authorities get it so wrong?…
That requires a mechanism for the failure of process.”
Research follows the money, its expensive so no one is going to research something thats not funded
If your Pro then your looking for the good effects in this case perfect or near perfect teeth Gov’ts are protective of policy & traditionally hard to change especially laws in this case which have been around for a very long time, the companies with supply contracts will fund research they believe will help sales (crazy if they didn’t). and any other associations/individuals which would lose a benefit if its not going their way
If you looking for Con (anti) the your looking at what else does it do …but tell me who funds this, a few outside mainstream, some individuals or associations who have a different need or perhaps a different system/product which works better
All this adds bias to what science does first
Now if we have 41% dental fluorsis in the US of A according to the supporters of F this could see a lot more funding by gov’t and the dental associations who would like see the better good for their communities
as to why there is this startlely increase of Fluorsis

Where oh where to begin….
Ian,
It is clear that you don’t understand the scientific method.
It has been explained on this blog ad-nauseum.
But, to shed some light on your dim viewpoint.
Bias IS a well-recognised element of scientific research.
Scientists know this.
Really, it’s their job. They design their experiments with this in mind.
These designs are published in their research papers; it’s called the Method section.
In the Discussion section of these studies, they discuss these biases along with other confounding factors.
Really.
You can read it for yourself and make you mind up as to the respective study validity, reliability or strength of their conclusions. Just pick up any reputable journal and take a peek.
But you don’t need to worry yourself with all that complimacated stuff because this study (if any good) will be subjected to peer review.
If it is poor research, it should get ripped to shreds.
If it is good research, it may be published in a reputable scientific journal.
No guarantees though, if you want one of those, buy a toaster……..(And NO I am not opening a door for conspiracy theorists)
But here’s a question for you Ian. You appear to think there is 41% of fluorosis in the US (admittedly your last sentences are difficult to decipher)
How do you know this and how do you trust this to be true?

I’m no longer interested in the manifest content of the shrieking from these idiots. What interests me more is their incorrigibility. Must be something to do with the culture (US) which is strongly relativistic and litigious. It’s like a weird scene from some eschatological movie ( and given the bible fundamentalism in the US who would be surprised – already!). Reality is determined by courts of law, or philosophical dispute, or theological minutiae. Meantime glaciers are melting, storms are increasing and sea levels rise.
“fluorosis is in the increase” says one of them. “IQs are plummeting” says another. These people are like robots that react to whatever contradicts their programmed paranoia. This is work for sociologists and psychologists me thinks. I don’t watch TV at all now (didn’t bother converting to digital) partly because of the raving paranoia coming out of the US.
If I could get my hands on them I’d hold them under water until their legs stopped thrashing!

Ian – you need an I phone mate. They correct spelling though sometimes substitute an unintended word.
Ian – re the financial masters theory. It does happen but not as ubiquitous as you seem to think. Researchers particularly those funded by public money cannot afford to lose credibility. An in any case, the peer review system where your research is scrutinised by people not of your choosing generally exposes trumped up conclusions. Even this web site pretty much exposes the dodgy claims. That’s why some correspondents don’t like us looking at their other web sites.

(These are the cranks who took NIWA to court claiming they faked NZ temperature record. Judging from the volume of the squealing it must be getting close to the time they have to pay costs awarded against them.)

Yep.
I (and others) repeat myself. I don’t really have a choice. I continuously refer to the same basic videos explaining genuine skepticism and I am forever taking one PRATT talking point from science denial topic “A” and switching it around with science denial topic “B” to show that they are merely two peas in a pod.
It’s always the same playbook.

I do it because of people like Ian.

I already know the arguments. All of the regulars already know the arguments. Plus they know exactly how I’m going to respond to them.
(and I’m sure it gets boring for them just as it does for me.)
It’s just once more around on the merry-go-round.

But then there’s people like Ian.

He’s not going to take the time to read and review all the previous relevent threads.
He’s got no idea how many times other people have used the EXACT SAME RATIONALISATIONS to turn a blind eye on the scientific consensus on “X”.
Which forces me and others to repeat themselves.
That’s the nature of PRATT’s.
That’s the nature of arguing with a science denier who has discovered some blog on the internet that is telling him what he wants to hear.
That’s the nature of conspiracy thinking.

Research follows the money, its expensive so no one is going to research something thats not funded

Claim CA321.1:
The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.
(Index to Creationist Claims)

(These are the cranks who took NIWA to court claiming they faked NZ temperature record. Judging from the volume of the squealing it must be getting close to the time they have to pay costs awarded against them.)

Take a good hard look at that blog.
Notice anything, you anti-fluoridationists out there?
Read the articles. Look at the way they frame their arguments. Check out their comments.
Identify the basic methodology they are using to get their information and prop up their ideology.
See it?
Yep. You’re looking into a mirror. They are doing what you are doing.
Don’t like it? Tough.
Reality can suck like that.

You see, your bog-standard climate denier and you have the same basic problem.
It’s you versus the scientific consensus.
For many, many decades now.
Really hard to go up against it.

So if you are not willing to accept all the work that went into creating that scientific consensus on “X”, you have two choices:

1) Roll up your sleeves and earn a Nobel Prize.
2) Comment on a blog run by some guy in his mother’s basement and buy his vanity-press novel.

Christopher Atkinson can you even use google since you are such nice fellow correcting my English (thanks for that) here’s the link http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
that must be one of those crank sites you were talking about……
I think its one of your trusted sites
Hence I would think that this would require a lot more investigation
The ADA could help fund it with the help of the gov’t……………I mean they wont want effect all those children going forward I guess we just have to wait another 60 years to see if the reduction works
Golly when do think funding will be announced for appropriate testing even you would want that to protect your children & grand kids

To understand the MO of these dudes you need to know a but about Edward Louis Bernays, nephew of Signalman Freud the well known Austrian railway worker. Nephew Ted, a disillusioned character defined public relations and “knowledge” in general as propaganda.
This idea influenced both left and right wing activism and flourished in recent decades among academic humanities “intellectuals”. Hence their contempt for scientific realism and sociological theories of knowledge. Such is their haste to transform society one way or another they forget (ex hypothesis) the rule also applies to them. But if the universe is Godless propaganda (or style – Oscar Wilde and me) is everything.

I think you are getting me confused with Richard as he corrected your poor spelling, not me.
Your English? I’m sure you haven’t spoken to Richard, so the appropriate term would be spelling.
While we are here though, your punctuation and grammar could do with a little tweaking – – but C’est la vie. I won’t get all high and mighty, mine’s not too hot either!

Also, I think you intended to say “affect” not “effect” – a common mistake

But at least I can make sense of it! So not to worry

Nor did I call you a crank.

Again, get it right.

Regarding referencing and citations.
You didn’t, so don’t get your Y fronts in a bunch when asked for.
It’s rude not include these when you make a claim, as a matter of course.

Thank you for providing a reference this time.

You said; “I think its one of your trusted sites”.
No, I don’t own it you silly sausage! But the CDC does provide reputable publications.

You on the other hand YOU are not trustworthy. No, No,No.

You are dishonest.

Why?

Because you claimed that this publication showed that their was 41% of fluorosis in the USA.

It doesn’t, not even close.
One click and hey presto

Right there in bold on page One was;

“Less than one-quarter of persons aged 6-49 had dental fluorosis”

Last time I looked 25 was lower than 41. Severe fluorosis measured less than 1%

The only result involving 41% related to a very small age range…you wouldn’t be selectively cherry picking numbers to misrepresent your position now would you?

Selective interpretation by both
cause aren’t we talking about children when your an adult you don’t get it
Prevalence of dental fluorosis was higher among younger persons and ranged from 41% among adolescents aged 12-15
I ignored “9% among adults aged 40-49.” adults do drop the average…..so mate I can see you cherry pick
Shame on you I can see the future generations don’t matter…

& yes I realized some is what pro camp call cosmetic but the total is clear in the age group 12-15 clearly stated at 41% for all types of dental fluorosis

Can you please confirm if its cosmetic no dental treatment required so there is no cost to the public purse or mine

Mate I would happily donate some funds to get this matter clarified by research in which F in the diet is controlled and all affects are studied and all biochemical pathways are reviewed fully so our kids & their kids are protected from dental fluorosis at the very least

In regard to CDC/Beltrain-Aguilar, that “41% of all children” is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.

The percentage of that 3.8% who may desire cosmetic treatment does not override the dental decay preventing benefit to the whole population. The cosmetics alone from dental decay are far worse than any from moderate dental fluorosis, and this not even take into account the amount of pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection that is prevented by water fluoridation. The cost savings of preventing the need for restoration of decayed teeth completely dwarfs any expenses involved in cosmetic treatment of the very few with moderate fluorosis who may desire to have it.

Ian
“…so our kids and their kids are protected from dental fluorosis at the very least”

Yes, once our children are “protected” from the life-threatening, facial deforming, oral health destructive, mind numbing, financially devastating, major disease of mild to very mild dental fluorosis, we would then be free to tackle the next item on the list of fluoridation horrors….hangnail.

…here’s the link (give the link to the CDC) that must be one of those crank sites you were talking about…

It’s amazing. They always do that. Trying to enlist on their side an authoritative source. As if it will somehow…help them.

Climate deniers do it too. The exact same thing. Only they have to do it with NASA or the IPCC.
It doesn’t work.
It’s still them versus the scientific consensus. It’s not going to magically change due to some lonely graph/paragraph/diagram/photo/statistic creatively lifted from a mainstream science source.

Ian? The CDC supports water fluoridation. We know this.
You should to.
Trust me when I say that they have a website in plain English and they spell it out nice and clear.
(No. Cancel that. Check it for yourself. It’s worth a read.)
For you to go hunting for something and go “Ooogity-Boogity” and play make-believe that you are in sync with the CDC smacks of desperation.
If you have to contort yourself that badly, then it speaks badly of your integrity.
Whatever you think it is you are doing, you’re doing it wrong.
Shame on you.

According to Figure 3 Change in dental fluorosis prevalence among childen aged 12-15………..
Dental Fluorosis1986-1987 1999-2004 Difference
Unaffected 47.1 39.6 7.5 decrease
Questionable 30.2 19.7 10.5 decrease
Very Mild 17.2 28.5 11.3 increase
Mild 4.1 8.6 4.5 increase (>100%)
Moderate &
Severe 1.3 3.6 2.3 increase (>170%)
Note the increase in the dental when its expressed as a percentage for the last 2 categories…& your busy reassuring me that F is good in water…may well be if that’s the only source, but with the hugh increase in the worst forms of D F
All of this to save part of a tooth
As for the science being right.
There have been plenty of examples in history showing that in time science changes over time & knowledge increases

Ian, if you are incapable of learning and applying a simple grammatical device in order to make your comments easily readable, why should we expect you to understand or be corrected on anything that is more complicated, such as your miscomprehended statistics and interpretation of scientific papers.

so Steve you think I twisted data, nope the data shows that there was an increase in Moderate & Severe from 1.3 % to 3.6% (fig 3 CDC report) the difference is a massive 176.9% increase (that’s 2.3/1.3*100)
Obviously the CDC & the Dental association don’t consider this to be an statistically significant but as a precaution the issue could be given little more research
Nothing new here Steve old data it 2013 we should be looking at a follow up study in the same age group to see if there any changes or is it getting worse Hope there is one in the pipe line.

Thanks Richard wasn’t sure you understood, I certainly didn’t come up with this, history is a wonderful thing but only if we have a open mind

Ian. Forget the blog sites. Just go and look in people’s mouths. Ask ordinary people who live in fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. Intelligent sensible people I mean, not beer swilling thickoes in truck stops.

It’s important to deal with the denial theories on a point by point basis but unless you control the mass media or large chunks of it like Rupert Murdoch you have to deal with them one at a time (like Marathon). The protagonists (Ian and Trevor) are expendable but the message is repeated, and repeated, and repeated. This can be discouraging because you don’t know when it will end.

At the same time it is worthwhile to look at the larger context which is all about manipulating public perceptions. I’ve already mentioned Edward Bernays and his equating knowledge with propaganda. His 1928 book “Propaganda” became the foundation document of Madison Avenue. We saw the culture in the recent TV drama series “Mad Men” which incidentally reglamourised smoking seductively as only period pieces can do. One wonders how much tobacco money went into it. The kind of irony Madison Avenue execs love.

Anyway, following this trend came Berger and Luckman’s “The Social Construction of Reality” (1966) which fell on fertile soil among left wing intellectuals who had a stake in subverting the current hegemony. This was popular because in the spirit of the times there were and are plenty of hegemonies that need subverting. White, male, heterosexual, Anglo Saxon, Protestant, Big Capital, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Banking, intellectuals, science, the Military Industrial Complex, the list is endless.

The problem with this theory is it revolves on an equivocation. It equivocates between the world (reality) and perceptions of it. It has a linguistic formulation too which claims reality is created by language. This is (literally) tailor made for the intellectually lazy. Thus dinosaurs did not exist until we gave them a name “dinosaur”. (Philosophers rightly call this the Use/Mention confusion). This linguistic approach resonates in many cultures and is very ancient. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1-3). There are various ways of interpreting this but “word” is variously interpreted as idea, thought or logos (reason). Ancient Chinese cosmology had similar formulations. The ancients in their ignorance thought language was unique to humans, their distinguishing characteristic. Many even philosophers, still do. An interesting aside is the evolution of daughter languages which corresponds apparently to shared interests. Language joins insiders and excludes outsiders. Berger and Luckman’s theory was effectively challenged by philosopher John Searle’s “The Construction of Social Reality”(1995).

If you look at the dates you will notice the generation that corresponds to Berger and Luckman’s book. The postwar generation. The university students of that era were strongly influenced by Marxist ideas from teachers who graduated in the 20s and 30s. With the failure of Marxist theory (May 68 and all that) to overturn capitalism, academics with these intellectual tools chose other more limited targets. Many abandoned theory completely (Postmodernists) and others “discovered capitalism” (If you can’t beat ’em join ’em!).

Alan Bloom famously challenged these developments “The Closing of the American Mind” (1987). He argued the youth of the day were distracted from authentic politics by the pursuit of spurious freedoms that make the rich richer. It is he claimed, the direct result of philosophical nihilism. This thinking percolates down into uncritical minds as a scepticism to any kind of authority including scientific, political, moral and philosophical authority. All that is left is psychological egoism exemplified by Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko and mad fringe theories posturing as science.
Here endeth the lesson.

Like I said, Ian. Data can be twisted to conform to any belief you wish. 1.3% to 3.6%? By all means, feel free to consider that “massive” if that will help your rationalization.

As far as “giving the issue a little more research”…….there is not but so much research you can do on a minuscule few parts per million of fluoride ions identical to those you’ve been consuming since birth. But, again, feel free. In the meantime, there is certainly not sufficient reason to deprive a population the benefits of water fluoridation while you do your further research.

Steve at what level of DF would you recommend research there is an overall uptrend in all categories in the 1986-2004 period
Will a reduction of F in water or, could it be due to F from another source (toothpaste, fumigates), failure to educate people to use F free water in infant formula
as a lot bottled water is consumed what affect does this have on F consumption/exposure

Ask ordinary people you say what a great idea…they obviously know a lot & can be 100% responsible for what ever they do,…they are so well educated
Cedric science sees all, knows all but too view understand it
open your mind to science & may it bring the next revelation
the point about science is it should always be subject to review and new hypothesis’
Who could ever imagine an anti-vaxxer or a climate denier or a creationist saying the exact same thing?
Your the only one here saying it so which are you ???????????

Ian, water is fluoridated at the miniscule level of 0.7 ppm. There have been no adverse effects proven attributable to it in its entire 68 year history. Conjecture and personal opinion will never cease. Opponents attempting to invoke the. “Precautionary Principle” until “more is known” are simply cloaking, in this concept, their efforts to have water fluoridation permanently abandoned. The one thing they do understand about fluoridation is that they can keep coming up with unsubstantiated claims ad infinitum. This is why demanding proof of a negative is not valid science.

I have 32 years experience in providing dental care to patients, in my own state and 6 others. My experience and and understanding of the science of fluoridation, tell me that dental fluorosis is not an issue with this public health initiative. There are drastically more problems created by the dental decay that could be prevented than by the benign, nearly undetectable effects of dental fluorosis which may be associated with fluoridated water.

There is a difference between not having “an open mind” and having the knowledge to understand what is relevant and important to an issue, and what is not.

I wouldn’t change my avatar for the world.
However, I’ve been doing some research on Ian’s writing style and I think Richard make be closer to the truth than even he suspects.

Ian is not human. That’s the easy part. Nobody out there writes like he does. However, he is not a Chopra Random Phrase Generator.
A careful examination of the writing style reveals the shocking truth.

“Cedric science sees all, knows all but too view understand it
open your mind to science & may it bring the next revelation
the point about science is it should always be subject to review and new hypothesis’”

Is it Cedric [S]cience sees all, knows all? (quite an cool name I think!)

Don’t tempt me. That is a rather cool name.
😉
But back to Ian.
There’s also his small problem of gaily abandoning the convention of starting sentence with a capital letter.
It’s a bit hit-and-miss.
Why would anybody do that? I just don’t get it.
Unless…they had paws. Then it makes sense.

Steve as I pointed out DF is increasing as whole. This means more children (3.6% of them in particular, as the rest are merely cosmetic effects ) are being exposed to higher levels of F.
My questions…when do we alter their exposure to F in someway?
You say
I have 32 years experience in providing dental care to patients, in my own state and 6 others. My experience and and understanding of the science of fluoridation, tell me that dental fluorosis is not an issue with this public health initiative. There are drastically more problems created by the dental decay that could be prevented than by the benign, nearly undetectable effects of dental fluorosis which may be associated with fluoridated water.
Unfortunately our personal experiences aren’t scientific data, and the No of caries through this period as fallen in both F & un F areas

Ian all language, communication and social interaction requires shared understanding. That requires conventions. Even texting requires conventions you )&67! See what I mean? Try listening or participating in a rock band or orchestra that doesn’t use musical convention. Try driving down the road at night in on the wrong side of the road with your head and tail lights reversed as some are reported to have done around Ruatoria. You obviously think without convention is the same as unconventional, something celebrated by some people under certain circumstances. There’s nothing really going on up there is there Ian? Just an empty vessel containing a weak spluttering candle that desperately seizes on the ephemeral. It’s a mistake to puff your self up by adopting a poorly understood pseudoscientific cause. You haven’t the education or critical faculties to judge whether you are backing the right horse or even articulate the arguments (spurious) coherently. I don’t enjoy saying this but I avoid phoneys when I can, and when I cant I let rip. I have no reason to think you aren’t a descent bloke when you being authentic. There a a lot of people like you in blog land Ian. The anonymity allows (so you think) the opportunity to pretend to be something you aren’t. In your poor excuse for cleverness you think you are fooling (stuck up) people. You are only fooling yourself and everyone else can see it. Many are too polite to say so. In principle your behaviour is not that different from cyber bullying and trafficking of obscene material. It’s a form of abuse and a gross insult to people who ordinarily would treat you respectfully. That’s one of the conventions of human intercourse (no I don’t mean sexual).
I suggest you toddle off and stick to one of those mutual congratulatory echo chambers you get most of your (ill understood) material from. Better still get outside and take the dog for a walk or mow the lawns.

If any of our kids performed we would just shunt them out the back door and ignore them until they apologised. Must have worked. One Phd, one pending and a major in philosophy. All outstanding in their own ways.

Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that
If you truly have an issue of understanding on the points just say so
Obviously your theory on the anti F brigade also applies to to the pro camp as well What was it bait & switch?
Hey you are pro F are you not?
Its been so long since I have seen a post referring to the matter in hand
As for putting my mother on …she died but you couldn’t know that could you ?
In fact she would be embarrassed by your criticism!
Enough said
Time to move back to the subject which was????????
I think everybody has forgotten

Ian, you asked my opinion on dental fluorosis. That’s what I gave you. I didn’t present it as scientific fact. Mild dental fluorosis is simply a benign effect that antifluoridationists are trumpeting as a major disorder for the lack of anything else that can be credibly attached to fluoride at 0.7 ppm. Once that becomes clear, they will move down the list to something else. It’s endless.

Hey guys my English grammar has never been my strong point, so just leave it at that…..

So we just have to put up with wasting our time trying to guess what you mean because you’re too lazy and incompetent to do better?
Hmm, no.
Asking you to write coherent sentences in basic English is being very reasonable. If you can’t do that then we can’t communicate. You are wasting our time. It’s more than a little bit rude.
We shouldn’t have to nursemaid you.
This isn’t remedial school.

I take seriously and concur with the pro-fluoridation position statements as provided by essentially every medical, community health and scientific organisation on the planet.

Seconded.
Fluoridation is a non-issue. It’s been a non-issue for many decades.
There is no reason for us to reject the scientific consensus.
Certainly not because of someone on the internet.

It’s like the moon landings.
We concur that the moon landings happened just like every scientific community on the planet. NASA and all the rest are a reliable source of information.
Some guy showing up on the internet with some aged talking point about flags waving in a vaccuum is not going to be enough to make us change our position.
Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.

I’ve been busy and just scrolled by past a bunch of posts which did not make sense and came to yours where you said,

his is directly applicable to Connet’s recent 4th question.

“4) Can you find any study that has refuted the key finding by Bassin et al., 2006, that there appears to be an age-specific nature to the risk of boys developing osteosarcoma when exposed to fluoride?…”

Well, what about this study….

“Fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United States among children and adolescents”

“Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”

Christopher.

If you carefully review the difference between the studies, you will immediately see that the two studies are not comparing the same things. Douglas has a vested interest in protecting fluoridation and fluoride. So what is the easiest way to discredit someone else’s research? Water down the numbers. The solution to the harm is dilution. Dilute the numbers and they no longer become statistically significant. Douglas did not look at specific age groups for risk but hid those ages of most risk among all children and adolescence.

A clever devious dishonest method of perpetuating the fluoride is safe myth.

I think you have mistaken Levy et al (and associated political conspiracies) for Douglass.
The idea that Levy et al was trying to discredit the earlier Bassin study based on personal politics is therefore invalid.
So what other reason’s would you have not to accept this study?

Irrespective of differing design/method, how do you refute the conclusion that;
“…suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence”

Why am I polite Stuart?
Bloody good question. Considering Bill chooses to ignore simple questions, and those he does answer he makes simple mistakes.
As for the arguments put forward by the “anti’s”, I am continually amazed at the truly stupid stupid responses.

There is one mindless idiot who, with such dogged persistence makes Forrest Gump look like Bertrand Russell – he insists reviewing pre WW2 material!
There are those who perhaps like the above example know what they say is stupid, but insist on “stirring the pot”, not realising at how sad it is to spend so much time and effort dredging up rubbish to validate their own stupidity.
There are countless examples of simple questions being ignored.
There are countless examples of answered questions being repeatedly asked
There are Conspiracy Theorists of all flavour and strength.
There are armchair internet experts who know better than cutting edge scientists.
There is a very small vocal minority of “experts” that either subscribe to a conspiracy viewpoint or have a vested interest in selling books, public speaking, subscriptions etc
These experts dodge simple questions; making errors that are so stupid these must be surely intentional.

None of the “experts” have been able to answer Richard’s Mechanism for Failure or my “So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
None.
NONE.
Why? Because there is no systemic failure to be found.
The very nature of the scientific method guards against this.

If we put the fluoride issue on the backburner for a second and just weigh up the level of crazy and stupid on each side…hey, you probably wouldn’t even need to weigh them…just a fleeting glance at the quantities would suffice.
I’m sure you could make a reasonably accurate estimate as to “clinical” significance.
And if you spent time to cleverly design an experiment, you could probably wheedle out those sneaky Machiavellian co-determinants of crazy and stupid.
Those of you in the “Anti” camp, can’t you see this?
Or do you simply say to yourself “Nope, not me….you’re bound to get a few of them in any group?”
But…it is more than just a few isn’t it?
C’mon now…..be honest….

Ken’s latest response to Paul’s questions is fascinating to me.
Ken’s major argument is that Paul brings up too many points and apparently Ken does not have time to respond to all of them, i.e. Gish gallop of arguments and questions. I think obvious scientific questions and points were presented and proponents using police powers to fluoridate everyone need to have answers rather than hide from the questions. Evading basic fundamental questions of science is not Gish gallop.

Just two questions Ken. I hope one question does not consist of Gish gallop.

To a more fundamental concern. Why do good scientists disagree? Probably many reasons. In the fluoridation controversy, may I suggest good scientists put different weight on different points.

1. Jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction, charged by Law, to approve the safety and efficacy of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease?
a. Sodium Fluoride (silicofluorides) fit within the classification of highly toxic substances, poison (less than 50 mg/Kg body weight causes violent sickness or death). Of course we dilute fluoride, but laws do not reflect dilution but intent of use. Jurisdiction for legal oversight of substances intended to prevent disease are determined by law. All state and federal laws I have seen in every country I have looked, define toxic substances such as poisons in similar ways. By law, highly toxic poisons such as fluoride are exempt from poison laws based on intent of use as pesticide or drug when regulated under pesticide or drug laws. No other exemptions are listed that I’ve seen. None. Either fluoridation is a drug or poison or pesticide. No exception.
b. No dispute, fluoride is added with the intent to prevent dental caries. The Federal agency (FDA CDER) in charge of drugs agrees fluoride when used with the intent to prevent disease, is a drug. Federal agency in charge of water (EPA in the USA) agrees they have no jurisdiction and are prohibited by law from adding fluoride to water with the intent to prevent disease in man or animals.

Ken or anyone, please explain who you think has jurisdiction over the safety and efficacy of substances used with the intent to prevent disease in humans. Please provide a law, letter, or communication from that regulatory agency that they have jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation.

To circumvent laws in the USA, proponents of fluoridation turn to the least scientifically aware, the non scientific elected officials and voters to determine the complex scientific controversy over safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Makes no legal, scientific or ethical sense.

Bill, you ignore the fact that Connett and his crowd have never had legal success arguing their claim the fluoride is a drug. I commented on this in my precious article and pointed out your use of this arguments was a matter of semantics and handwaving. The fact that you have no legal success to point to is very telling.

As for Gish gallop – it is a tactical approach used by creationists and similar. They have no intention if discussing any question in detail and love on to the next as fast as possible.

I think we have discussed a whole range of issues in this exchange. You have not pointed to anything I avoid.

I have to laugh at your claim that proponents of fluoridation “turn to the least scientifically aware.” Isn’t this exactly what Connett and his activist organisation are doing. Using cherry picked science to provide a sciency flavour to their claim? Don’t hey descend on clinics and water authorities with their pseudoscience? Are they not claim theta they are the experts when the even mixing up thinks like sodium fluoride and silica fluorides? And don’t they make use of referendums when they think it will go their way?

Experience surely shows your arguments do make legal sense – you never have success in the courts. As for scientific sense – well we are debating those aspects in this exchange. Paul made large diversions into irrelevant stuff in his last contribution, but I think people can and should make their own judgment. I have noticed that this exchange seems to be upsetting local anti-fluoridation activists no end. As for ethical sense – I have written quite a bit on the ethics of this question during the exchange. Unfortunately Paul’s concept of the ethics (and apparently your’s too) does not go beyond his obsession with fluoride as a drug. Something the courts have already ruled on.

Hi Bill,
Good to see you’re back.
Not good to see that you’re making mistakes again.
I won’t restate my questions….just scroll up a few posts for one of them. It’s not difficult.
But here is one I and several others have asked to no avail…

“So you think that the tens of thousands of scientists and researchers who submit to peer review, scattered across the planet with the intention of furthering their respective field of inquiry are just plain dumb?”
As for evidence for stupid responses. There is plenty of evidence peppered throughout this blog. Don’t ask me to provide evidence, you can read.
Or do you endorse every stupid response here?
As for jurisdiction.
I have answered you before which authorities in NZ have jurisdiction and the relevant legislation. The fact that you ask again shows that you either not reading or intentionally ignoring what is written. Both options exhibit a high level of flippancy.
You seem to cling to the idea that Fluoride at .07ppm is a medicine. This definition is yours and is shared by many anti fluoridationists.

The EPA has complete regulatory authority over mineral additives to water. Whether you agree or not, the EPA has full jurisdiction over fluoride added to water at 0.7 ppm. That is a fact. If you have a problem with that, then go argue your case with the EPA.

You and Paul seem to be under the mistaken assumption that you may make your own laws, according to your own personal ideologies, and everyone should abide by your ” decision” that fluoride is a “drug”, because you say it is.

Again, the courts have made themselves clear on this. Your argument has been rejected time and time again. You don’t like their rulings so you simply attempt to paint the legal process as being “the least scientific”.

The fact is, that no matter how hard you and Paul wish for it to be a “drug”, fluoride at 0.7 ppm is just an ion identical to that ion which already exists in water. By your logic, our water is already “drugged”. If you demand extensive testing of the fluoride ion added with HFA, then you are demanding extensive testing of the same ion which humans have been ingesting in water since time began.

If you want to attempt this time worn argument yet once again in court, feel free. But, given that the courts have not been taken in by this antifluoridationist gambit before, I don’t like your chances. Other than that, unless you and Paul think you can somehow circumvent the legal process and redefine the law to your liking, you’ll just have to live with reality……adding a minuscule few parts per million more of a fluoride ion identical to that fluoride ion already existing in the water, does not magically turn it into a “drug” requiring totally unnecessary, extensive testing.

As for Gish gallop – it is a tactical approach used by creationists and similar. They have no intention if discussing any question in detail and love on to the next as fast as possible.

Bill, the Gish Gallop is a debate tactic.
It’s well known and it’s very dishonest. Paul is guilty of it.
You don’t seem to be able to bring yourself to acknowledge that simple fact.
Ken has spelt it out nice and clear.

Evading basic fundamental questions of science is not Gish gallop.
Just two questions Ken. I hope one question does not consist of Gish gallop.

Pretending that you still don’t know what a Gish Gallop is will not help you.

A Gish Gallop is very easy to spot once you are aware of how the tactic works.
It’s not the same as “evading basic fundamental questions of science”.
There are even short and simple videos to help the general public understand what’s actually going on.
You can shove your fingers in your ears and go “LALALALALALALA” as much as you like but it won’t make Paul’s Gish Gallop magically go away.

The internet is a wonderful thing.
You find all sorts of interesting stuff.

Bill, can I trust you?
Are you…sciencey?

You’ve done your research, right? And you have degrees. And you have a white doctor’s gown. Plus there’s all that dental equipment behind you lending you that air of authority. Also, I couldn’t help but notice the water flowing from taps as you were talking. That would only happen if you were telling the trooth.
The “won’t somebody think of the children” moment was a nice touch.

It’s a curious anomoly you’ve found.
Toothpaste.
Says it’s a drug right there on the back of the tube.
And that cup of water is simply filled with fluoride.
Yet “they” don’t protect the public from such a criminal act of putting toxins in our water.
Oh the shame of it.
(It’s a real shock, gasp, horror moment.)
GIven that you have discovered the anomoly that brings down the whole house of cards and anyone watching your example can quickly see the anomoly too….then what’s really going on with “them”?
What’s the mechanism?

I will help you out and in doing so show why you have made such a silly mistake.

I will use “Drugs” as an example.
Drugs are also regulated on the basis of harm. Many drugs are not regulated because they pose little or negligible harm. Dilution necessarily reduces the preponderance of harm.
For example, you are able to purchase and drink as many bottles of caffeinated coffee or coke as you like.
Alcohol is more harmful, therefore it is more regulated, as are many other substances.

But before I go on…are you wrong here Bill? Have you made yet another mistake? A mistake in the application of the Law maybe?

So…. let’s for a second pretend Bill gets his way and we say fluoridated water is a “drug” (ignoring the absurdities that this entails).

What evidence do you have to show that 0.7ppm fluoridate water is harmful?
You need to come up with some extraordinary evidence…it has been 68 years…

uh….before you start. Could I ask that you use mainstream peer reviewed scientific studies that show actual harm.

Not anecdotes
Nor any pre world war 2 studies
No secondary sources.
No pretend, made up harm
No irrelevant studies.
No disregarding relevant information
No pictures of Horses
No obfuscation

Should be simple for you. A man with lots of letters after his name and the world of experience behind you …go on, you can do it

“…surely he can concede that the purpose of fluoridation is to treat people as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink? And if he is willing to concede that then doesn’t treating people – at least in some countries – require that those treated have the right to informed consent to that treatment? This is not just about semantics it is about fundamental human rights”

“The water of Lower Hutt is no doubt pure in its natural state but it is very deficient in one of the natural constituents normally to be found in water in most parts of the world. The addition of fluoride adds no impurity and the water remains not only water but pure water and it becomes a greatly improved and still natural water containing no foreign elements.”

As far as I am aware this remains binding precedent under NZ law.

If Connet, Bill or anyone else who thinks this is not correct please cite the relevant Statute or case law.

Laws do not reflect intent of use, the regulate because of outcomes, harms.
So what’s the ” intent of use” Bill. Poison out “precious bodily fluids?”, “lower our IQs?”, “turn us into baby devouring communists?”, (an early version of this madness”, or a simple public health measure to minimise preventable tooth decay?

You defend adding small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium – oh, and yes, a lot of fluorosilicic acid – to our water, which people will drink for their entire lives in any amount, regardless of any pre-existing health problems they may have. And you are saying that is absolutely safe for everyone. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.

The burden of proof is on you to prove all these chemicals working together are safe.

You fluoridationists defend fluoridating water with a toxic waste grade of fluoride even though there are pharmaceutical grade sources of fluoride available if you really want to consume it, such as getting a Luride prescription, or swallowing some of your toothpaste.

And some of your are dentists!!! A dentist in his right mind will oppose drinking water fluoridation 1) because CDC and NRC say we are getting too much total fluoride – even if a little is good, and 2) if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.

And you champion this fluoridation fraud just so you can allegedly reduce caries by maybe 25% or 10% or maybe not at all? When there are other good ways to kill streptoccocus mutans, such as putting an antibiotic mouthwash in your Water Pick and killing those bacteria directly?https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antibacterial+mouthwash

Yes, fluoride does kill bacteria, but so too does a sledge hammer. Would you use a sledge hammer on your teeth?

Fluoridation is quackery of the first order, down with tetraethyl lead, DDT, nuclear power, and Roundup. It operates like a true-believer religion. It is a big lie, a mass marketing fraud, a group hallucination. You guys are trapped in a maze where the exits are blocked by false beliefs.

And your response to anything that disagrees with your fluoride religion is mockery.

Yes, we all realize your financial interests in keeping this issue alive, with your constant references to your “class action” website. But, could you please at least do a little research on the issue from reliable sources before making a complete fool out of yourself with such a blatant display of ignorance of the facts of fluoridation? It’s hard to find one accurate statement in your ridiculous rant. You are supposedly a professional. Act like one.

Your failure to answer the question is not an answer and a stunning admission you don’t know or don’t want to admit who has jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. You and I have a right to determine the safety and efficacy of substances for ourselves. In this case someone is using police powers to force others to ingest fluoride. Who has that power and authority to determine whether the substance is scientifically safe and effective. In all other cases of substances used with the intent to treat/prevent disease in humans, the national drug regulatory agency has jurisdiction. And in all countries (that I’m aware of), the drug regulatory authorities have rejected the ingestion of fluoride for the prevention of caries because the science is incomplete. Not one prospective randomized controlled trial. And those probably could not be done because no human research authority would give an OK.

You fear the truth because fluoride is a highly toxic poison and Federal law, Congress and the FDA CDER (and Australian drug regulatory authority) have been consistent and clear that fluoride is a drug.

Several times courts have ruled fluoridation is not supported by science and not legal. Indeed, some state courts have supported fluoridation, but your claim all court cases have supported fluoridation is simply flawed. But then I am not a lawyer, so back to my question. Who has jurisdiction to determine the safety and efficacy of fluoridation? The CDC says not them. The EPA says not them. The FDA says they do and you apparently say they don’t.

Ken, what national regulatory agency has jurisdiction?

To your second point of Gish gallop debating tactic. Gish gallop, as you know, is used when there is not enough time to respond in an oral debate. Gish gallop does not apply to this situation. This is a written debate and there is no time limit. Your excuse and failure to respond to scientific points in writing by hide behind an oral debate tactic is simply bogus and shows a lack of scientific evidence. Evasion is not an answer.

So if there are too many points, lets reset the rules of this debate and narrow the topic to one of any one of the points of concern which have been raised. First is Jurisdiction. There are government agencies set up with policies and experts to determine efficacy and safety of substances. You simply ignore jurisdiction.

Then we need to answer:
“Total Fluoride Exposure.” How much fluoride are people ingesting and inhaling and exposed to? Total fluoride exposure range, high and low for individuals?

Then we need to determine how much total fluoride is optimal? In other words, how much are we getting and how much do we need? Then we need to determine what is safe?

I know, I know, you have not answered my first question of Jurisdiction and now I’m expanding and adding the second question of total exposure. Does two questions mean I’m another Gish galloper?

If two questions are too much, then lets go back to the first:

Ken, please fill in the blank: “The government agency for determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation is _________________.”

You seem to pop in and out of reality –
Great to see you back. You seem a little upset!?
Perhaps you could finally answer my question…you know the one I asked you on 3rd December. I am particularly interested in how you think Big Business is able to percolate and coordinate such a globally successful conspiracy.
I have copied my previous question so you needn’t have the difficulty associated with scrolling up.
“Hi jamesrobertdeal
Thank you for your reply
You did not give me a scientific mechanism. You gave me a (conspiracy) theory.
Don’t take this in a pejorative way – conspiracies do occur – but I would hazard to guess just not as often as you like to think.
You gave me a long history peppered with many unsubstantiated facts (which I do not know whether true or not).
Could you please distil it down into a short few pithy sentences, omitting irrelevant details? – parsimony is key to any mechanism, especially on the scale that you are operating.
However, one glaring problem that I see is you centre your theory on the USA.
I understand you live there, however how do you account for pro-fluoridation positions held in other countries, for example NZ?”

Somehow the facts seem not to be sinking in to you. So, let me reiterate them for you.

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS FULL JURISDICTION, OVERSIGHT AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER FLUORIDE ADDED TO WATER AT THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.

THE FDA HAS NO JURISDICTION OR REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER FLUORIDE ADDED TO WATER AT THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.

From page 1 of the 2006 NRC Report:

“Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is required to establish exposure standards for contaminants
in public drinking-water systems that might cause any adverse effects on
human health. These standards include the maximum contaminant level
goal (MCLG), the maximum contaminant level (MCL), and the secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL). The MCLG is a health goal set at a
concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected to occur and
the margins of safety are judged “adequate.” The MCL is the enforceable
standard that is set as close to the MCLG as possible, taking into consider-
ation other factors, such as treatment technology and costs. For some con-
taminants, EPA also establishes an SMCL, which is a guideline for managing drinking water for aesthetic, cosmetic, or technical effects.”

From page 2 of the 2006 NRC Report:

“On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate
independently the scientiﬁc basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of
2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect
children and others from adverse health effects. The committee was asked to consider the relative contribution of various ﬂuoride sources (e.g., drinking water, food, dental-hygiene products) to total exposure. The committee was also asked to identify data gaps and to make recommendations for future research relevant to setting the MCLG and SMCL for ﬂuoride.

Now, if the jurisdictional oversight and regulatory authority over water fluoridation is not to your liking, then you will need to address that with the EPA.

Now, if you want information on total daily fluoride intake from all sources, the CDC and the IOM have just what you need. Access those sites.

Bill,
You really seem to have a thing with the word Jurisdiction, as though it has magical powers.
To answer you YET AGAIN.
This will be the last time I repeat this for you.
In NZ, three organisations are concerned with the provision of safe and wholesome drinking-water to any particular community in New Zealand, one at the local level, one regional and one at the national level.
The Health (Drinking-Water) Amendment Act 2007 is the primary legislative tool that promotes adequate supplies of safe and wholesome drinking water from all drinking-water supplies.
Under this Act, you will find the relevant organizations responsible for public water supplies.
I have given you case law specific to fluoridated water. This may also be used as a primary source of law.
I will give you the case reference again;
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116

But back to your question.
“Jurisdiction. Who has jurisdiction, charged by Law, to approve the safety and efficacy of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease?”
This sentence does not make sense in several ways.
1) “Charged by Law” is a redundancy and adds no meaning to this sentence. It does however indicate that you are attempting to make your question sound “legal” in a vain attempt at giving it added credibility. However it simply makes you look like an arse (ass).

2) Legislators, have the power to make laws under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (perhaps legislative supremacy in the USA?). With regard to laws involving “substances”, these Laws can be both prescriptive and proscriptive. Before a Law is enacted it may go through a consultative process whereby experts in the relevant field have an opportunity to comment on issues of safety and/or harm. Once it’s law….that’s it.

3) “…safety and efficacy of any substance “. The question is nonspecific. There are many substances that are regulated. Which ones do you mean? Again, look at the respective substance and the law surrounding its regulation. Regarding fluoridated water, I have cited you primary and authoritative case law directly on point. I can copy it again for you but I fear you will just pretend you haven’t seen it or pretend it is not relevant.

4) Stuart quite rightly hit the nail on the head. “Intent to prevent disease”.
You really don’t know what you are talking about do you? Substances are incapable of intent so I guess you mean the person administering them. Again you need to look at the substance and then look at the Law to see how it is regulated. Therein you may find the Holy Grail you oft seek.

So….quite apart from having an uncanny ability for constructing nonsensical sentences, it is my humble opinion Bill, that you don’t know your arse from your elbow when it comes to the Law.
You blunder around throwing words haphazardly about with confidence of charlatan and the precision of a drunk cabbage.
More worrying perhaps is that you persist with these errors despite these being shown to repeatedly and clearly.
It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is unable to learn from his mistakes.
Doh…

Sorry, guys. Like every supremely arrogant American worth his salt, I forget from time to time that the sun doesn’t revolve around the United States. My comment to Bill was in regard to US law. However, you have him well covered with NZ jurisdictional law in regard to fluoridation.

I find it very informative that you lend your experience/expertise.
The complexities in the USA are obviously greater,,, but when you boil the fluoridated water in either country it appears you still get a lot of hot air!

In Canada’s justice system fluoride was ruled as “compulsory preventive medication” and was never appealed by the Government of Canada.

Metropolitan Toronto v. Forest Hill (Village), [1957] S.C.R. 569:
If the purpose of adding fluorides to drinking water is to prevent or reduce dental cavities, as Health Canada admits In response to Petition 299, those fluorides then become drugs or medication. This is not just an opinion but the basis for the Supreme Court of Canada judgment reached by justices J. Rand and J. Cartwright. Health Canada’s opinion on the nature and purpose of the fluorides added to drinking water does not seem sustainable in the least. The nature of the fluorides is determined by their purpose. If the purpose of adding those fluorides to drinking water were to treat the water to make it potable, they would not be drugs and would be legal as long as they met applicable American National Standards Institute/National Sanitation Foundation (ANSI/NSF) standards. However, this is by no means the case: their purpose is to prevent dental cavities. Justices J. Rand and J. Cartwright accordingly reached the following conclusion:

But it is not to promote the ordinary use of water as a physical requisite for the body that fluoridation is proposed. That process has a distinct and different purpose; it is not a means to an end of wholesome water for water’s function but to an end of a special health purpose for which a water supply is made use of as a means (p. 572).

Its purpose and effect are to cause the inhabitants of the metropolitan area, whether or not they wish to do so, to ingest daily small quantities of fluoride, in the expectation which appears to be supported by the evidence that this will render great numbers of them less susceptible to tooth decay. The water supply is made use of as a convenient means of effecting this purpose. In pith and substance the by-law relates not to the provision of a water supply but to the compulsory preventive medication of the inhabitants of the area (p. 580, emphasis added).

Fluoridation thus constitutes “compulsory preventive medication.” As this judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was never appealed by the Government of Canada, it must have force of law and, in our view, Health Canada’s opinion that fluorides added to drinking water are not drugs has no legal or judicial value.

Bill, I think your question about “jurisdiction” has been adequately answered by others. It is not a question that interests me and seems to be a diversion.

However, you do say that several courts have ruled fluoridation not supported by science and nôt legal. Well, could you provide these instance please? With some sort of reference and link. So far I have been unable to find any so I await support for your claim with baited breath, hoping to learn something.

I think you should check out the meaning of Gish gallop – it is not what you think. It has nothing to do with time restrictions at all. It is just a way of avoiding a rational discussion by continually diverting , or attempting to divert, onto other ill defined areas. Actually, putting a question on jurisdiction to me seems like a good example as it diverts away from my point about ethics being wider than the semantics and handwaving involved in defining fluoride as a drug.

Thank you for your question about the origin of fluoridation and how it could go on for so long and be believed in by so many scientists if it is not safe, effective, and legal.

The origin of fluoridation is outlined in Bryson’s book and on my site at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/sham. Making aluminum for planes and refining uranium for bombs produced a lot of excess fluoride. Alcoa had connections in the US Public Health Service. Alcoa had a lot of sodium fluoride to off load. Fluoridation started in 1945 on an experimental basis, pushed by Alcoa and the Public Health Service, with no approval by any federal or state agency. The experiments were not completed, and fluoridation just kept growing, based on the myth that it was safe and effective. It is slightly effective but not safe. There was not enough sodium fluoride to meet the demand, so fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer production was used and soon became the primary fluoridation material. Other countries followed the US, primarily the English speaking countries.

Most medical doctors and dentists do not study the science behind fluoridation in depth. They just accept the word of other white coats that it is safe, effective, and legal. They too assume that because so many other white coats say it is safe and effective that it is. Doctors are dosing their patients with all kinds of drugs which turn out to be unsafe. Vioxx for example. Doctors endorsed smoking for example. Just because a large number of people believe something does not make it so, even if they have advanced degrees.

FDA and EPA would not formally approve fluoridation, so they passed the buck to NSF. Read about the NSF fraud at http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/nsf. NSF is a trade association, and the producers of fluoridation materials sit on its board. NSF does not perform the 20 tox studies required by its own guidelines. Fluoridation is legal only using materials which “comply” with NSF guidelines. The tox studies are not done and so the materials do not “comply” and so fluoridation is not legal.

Your question implies a belief on your part that because fluoridation has gone on for so long, it must therefore be safe, effective, and legal. This does not follow logically. Once a cash flow gets going, it has a momentum of its own and is hard to stop. There is no conspiracy. There is just a desire to keep the cash flow going.

You defend adding small amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and thallium – oh, and yes, a lot of fluorosilicic acid – to our water, which people will drink for their entire lives in any amount, regardless of any pre-existing health problems they may have. And you are saying that is absolutely safe for everyone. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.

The burden of proof is on you to prove all these chemicals working together are safe.

You fluoridationists defend fluoridating water with a toxic waste grade of fluoride even though there are pharmaceutical grade sources of fluoride available if you really want to consume it, such as getting a Luride prescription, or swallowing some of your toothpaste.

And some of your are dentists!!! A dentist in his right mind will oppose drinking water fluoridation 1) because CDC and NRC say we are getting too much total fluoride – even if a little is good, and 2) if you still want to apply fluoride topically, the only way to reduce total fluoride consumption is for people to stop drinking it.

And you champion this fluoridation fraud just so you can allegedly reduce caries by maybe 25% or 10% or maybe not at all? When there are other good ways to kill streptoccocus mutans, such as putting an antibiotic mouthwash in your Water Pick and killing those bacteria directly?https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antibacterial+mouthwash

Yes, fluoride does kill bacteria, but so too does a sledge hammer. Would you use a sledge hammer on your teeth?

Fluoridation is quackery of the first order, down with tetraethyl lead, DDT, nuclear power, and Roundup. It operates like a true-believer religion. It is a big lie, a mass marketing fraud, a group hallucination. You guys are trapped in a maze where the exits are blocked by false beliefs.

And your response to anything that disagrees with your fluoride religion is mockery.

James at Fluoride Class Action
December 17, 2013

You responded:

Attorney Deal

Yes, we all realize your financial interests in keeping this issue alive, with your constant references to your “class action” website. But, could you please at least do a little research on the issue from reliable sources before making a complete fool out of yourself with such a blatant display of ignorance of the facts of fluoridation? It’s hard to find one accurate statement in your ridiculous rant. You are supposedly a professional. Act like one.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

You did not respond to the substance of what I said. You just engaged in mockery what I said. I challenge you to respond paragraph by paragraph with something substantial.

1. Please tell me what the Supreme Court of the Netherlands said about fluoridation?
2. You suggest the courts have ruled on fluoridation. Please provide a reference to the Federal Court ruling that fluoridation is not a drug.
3. Drug Therapy June 1975

The FDA has addressed a ”regulatory letter” to approximately 35 companies marketing combination drugs consisting of fluoride and vitamins. The letter states that these drugs are related to a product (Ernziflur lozenges) for which FDA has withdrawn approval of a new drug application. The NDA for Enziflur was withdrawn because there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its labeling.

The FDA has therefore advised manufacturers of combination fluoride and vitamin preparations that their continued marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.

Ken, if the FDA did not permit fluoride pills via prescription under a doctors direction and patient’s freedom of choice, it is highly unlikely they would permit fluoride in water. But why don’t you ask? Why have proponents failed to even write a letter to the FDA CDER and ask. I did and the FDA CDER said fluoride when used with the intent to prevent disease is a drug. All proponents have to do is get FDA CDER approval and it would take a great load off my mind. At least the drug would be legal. So why haven’t they? Why hasn’t the CDC or Surgeon General or American Dental Association asked the FDA CDER for approval? It would have tremendous strength for proponents if they would simply get a letter from the FDA CDER saying fluoridation is not a drug. I bet they have and NDA for fluoridated water has been denied or applicants were told to withdraw the application.

Christopher,
You are not answering my question. I am asking who has Jurisdiction over determining whether the substance manufactured by the water district (fluoridated water) is effective and safe.

The court case you provide does not answer that question.
Attorney-General ex relatione Lewis and Another v Lower Hutt City – [1965] NZLR 116

Please provide the name of the agency who has jurisdiction over determining the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Not an historic court case of whether it can be done, but what agency has jurisdiction to monitor the science on safety and efficacy. Who has their balls on the line for liability of safety and efficacy and to pay for harm?

Bill, you do understand the Gish gallop – at least instinctively, because that is what you are doing to avoid my question. We are not dicussing pills and cosmetics, but fluoridation of community water supplies. Others have answered your specifically on jurisdiction – as I said it doesn’t interest me and for the life of me I cannot see why you should ask me.

“I am pleased Paul gave such a prominent role to ethics in his last article but disappointed he reduces the ethical aspects to simply his wish to define fluoridated water as a medicine. If that exhausted the ethical aspects the discussion would now be over as no court has accepted this definition in a final way.”

I indicated that was my understanding but invited Paul to give me any examples he was aware of that involved judicial acceptance of his definitions as applied to fluroidation.

I mentioned that a Pennsylvanian anti-fluoridation group ActionaPA.org even laments:

“While the courts have acknowledged that fluoridated chemicals are hazardous, the courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of water fluoridation whenever the courts were asked to rule on the merits of fluoridation or on the right of government to fluoridate. The courts have consistently brushed aside the scientific and ethical matters raised by safe drinking water advocates, while deferring to the opinions of pro-fluoridation state authorities. These decisions have formed a body of case law so one-sided that the courts have allowed this momentum to justify further pro-fluoridation decisions.”

Now, I have asked you the same thing and you seem to want to avoid the question by putting extra ones to me. It is disingeuous to repsond to my question by asking &